cancel_booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a significant side effect (a -20 score penalty when Driver cancels) and a special case for the cancelled_by field. This goes beyond just saying 'cancel' and gives agents essential context about consequences.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides necessary information. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, a key side effect, and a conditional parameter value. It's missing potential details like what happens after cancellation (e.g., booking status change), but the essentials are present.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds meaning beyond the enum by explaining the score penalty for 'Driver' and the special 'No Driver Available' value. This helps agents choose the correct cancelled_by value for different scenarios.

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?

The description opens with 'Cancel a booking' – a specific verb+resource that immediately identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_booking, complete_booking, and get_booking_status by focusing on cancellation.

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?

The description provides a specific usage condition ('If no driver was found, set cancelled_by to...') that guides correct invocation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool has no direct sibling that also cancels, so the guidance is adequate.

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