Cancel Ticket

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that paid tickets incur a cancel_charge and that user confirmation is expected. It does not state whether cancellation is reversible or what happens to ancillary items, keeping it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the cost caveat and the confirmation requirement. Nothing is wasted and no sentence repeats a structured field.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential agent-facing concerns: cost of cancellation, where to check it, and the need to confirm. Irreversibility and post-cancellation state are left implicit, but the destructive hint partially covers that.

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 coverage is 67%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (lang and refund_to_original_source both carry descriptions). The description adds no meaning to ticket_id or to the refund routing choice, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a reservation or a paid ticket'), which clearly separates it from creation-oriented siblings like create_reservation and read-only ones like get_my_ticket. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 a concrete operating instruction ('Confirm with the user first') and routes the agent to get_my_ticket to inspect cancel_charge before acting on paid tickets. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion, but the context for safe use is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.