confirm_cancellation

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds the key behavioral nuance: without approval_token the call only proposes rather than executing the cancellation. This is valuable behavior beyond the structured annotations.

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 primary action, followed by the critical conditional. Every word earns its place with no redundant schema repetition.

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 tool with output schema and annotations, the description captures the essential workflow: get a quote, then confirm with an approval token. It does not explicitly state how approval_token is obtained, but request_approval is a sibling and the conditional behavior is clearly described. Minor gap only.

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 carries the parameter-semantics burden. It meaningfully explains approval_token's role, but it does not explain what cancellation_id is or how to obtain it beyond implying it comes from quote_cancellation. Partial compensation only.

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 action ('Cancel the booking') on a specific resource, and explicitly ties it to a quote from quote_cancellation. This differentiates it from similar sibling tools like quote_cancellation and confirm_order_change without opening their schemas.

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 clearly indicates this tool should be used after quote_cancellation and explains the approval-token dependency. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the quoted precondition provides sufficient routing context.

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