Cancel My Event Registration

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses concrete effects: reserved seats are released, full refund is credited to the user's wallet at that school, access is restricted to owner/coordinator, and the user must confirm before cancellation. This adds real behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by consequences, permission constraint, and a clear safety warning. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the identity of the affected ticket, the post-cancellation effects (seats and refund), the authorization constraint, and the required user confirmation. No significant calling context 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?

The single parameter is already fully documented by the schema (100% coverage), including the constraint that the ticket must belong to the caller and be cancellable. The description repeats the source of ticket_id but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Cancels'), specifies the resource ('one of the authenticated user's own event tickets'), names the required input source ('ticket_id from list_my_event_registrations'), and distinguishes itself from sibling cancel tools by targeting ticket registrations rather than lunch orders, volunteer signups, or the event itself.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: for a user's own event ticket cancellation, and it sets the condition that only the ticket owner or a coordinator may cancel. It also includes a confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cancel_school_event or cancel_my_volunteer_signup, so some routing is left to context.

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