Cancel a reservation by providing the confirmation number and a confirmation token obtained after user approval. Requires explicit user confirmation before proceeding.
Preview a cancellation. After explicit user approval, repeat the same confirmationNumber with confirmationToken.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmationToken | No | ||
| confirmationNumber | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a preview operation, requires explicit user approval, and needs a confirmationToken to actually confirm. This is strong for a destructive operation, though it could further mention irreversibility or authorization requirements.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action 'Preview a cancellation' is front-loaded, and the confirmation flow is stated efficiently.
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?
The description captures the essential two-phase flow but leaves some gaps: it does not explicitly state that confirmationToken comes from the preview response, what the preview returns, or how to handle errors. For a low-complexity tool without an output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that confirmationNumber is reused across both calls and that confirmationToken is the artifact needed for the confirmed cancellation, giving workflow-level semantics beyond the raw schema names.
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 clearly states the tool previews a cancellation and then confirms it by repeating the same confirmationNumber with a confirmationToken. This differentiates it from sibling tools like modify_reservation by naming cancellation as the specific resource and action.
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 clear two-step workflow: first preview the cancellation, then after explicit user approval call again with the confirmationToken. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like modify_reservation for non-cancellation changes, but the intended usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.