easytable_cancel_booking

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that without confirm, no network call is made (dry-run), and with confirm, cancellation happens. It also clarifies the need for the mobile number. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not elaborate on potential side effects like emailed confirmations.

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 sentences: first states purpose and prerequisite, second details the confirm parameter's effect. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the critical confirm behavior. It could optionally describe what the dry-run preview looks like, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the functional difference when confirm is true vs false (dry-run vs actual cancellation) and by emphasizing the need for the mobile used during booking. This enriches the schema's static descriptions.

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 'Cancel an existing booking' and instructs to look up the booking id using a sibling tool. It distinguishes itself from other tools like create, modify, and list by specifying cancellation as its sole function.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to cancel), what prerequisite is needed (booking id from find_bookings), and how the confirm parameter controls behavior: without it, a dry-run preview is returned; with confirm: true, actual cancellation occurs. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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