cancel_meetingCancel a scheduled meeting by event ID, optionally add a reason, and notify attendees; this irreversible action requires user confirmation first.
Cancel a scheduled meeting. Attendees are notified, and this cannot be undone, so confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Event ID or UUID (from list_events) | |
| cancel_reason | No | Optional reason shared with attendees |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: attendees are notified (an external side effect with open-world consequences) and the action cannot be undone, which reinforces but also concretizes the destructive hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the irreversibility and confirmation requirement are front-loaded where the agent will see them. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent-facing facts: what happens to attendees, irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. Minor gaps remain (permissions, recurring/series meetings), but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with eventId pointing to list_events and cancel_reason documented as an optional attendee-visible reason. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Cancel a scheduled meeting" is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like book_meeting, list_events, and get_event. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation, but an agent can route to it unambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: "confirm with the user first" because the action is irreversible. It does not address alternatives (e.g., rescheduling vs. canceling, or handling recurring events), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.