delete_appointment_groupDelete an appointment group and cancel any existing reservations. Provide cancel_reason to notify participants.
Delete an appointment group and cancel any existing reservations. Provide cancel_reason to notify participants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cancel_reason | No | Message to include in cancellation notifications | |
| appointment_group_id | Yes | The appointment group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.15Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]{0,18}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / appointment_group_id / typeRemoved value: -"number"v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the side effect on existing reservations and that cancel_reason drives participant notifications. It does not state irreversibility or permission requirements, keeping it below 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 tight sentences with the destructive action stated first and the optional notification parameter second. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its cascade effect on reservations, and the optional notification parameter. It leaves out only secondary details such as reversibility and required permissions.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that cancel_reason produces cancellation notifications, which slightly enriches the schema's 'Message to include in cancellation notifications', but adds no format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete an appointment group'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_appointment_group, update_appointment_group, get_appointment_group, and list_appointment_groups. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not differentiated by explicit contrast.
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 implies usage (destructive removal of an existing group) and hints at the cancel_reason workflow, but never states when to use this versus update_appointment_group or what prerequisites (ownership, permissions) apply. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.