insync_cancel_appointment

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

Annotations already flag destructive and open-world writes, and the description adds context annotations cannot carry: the action is a reviewable request, it cannot be withdrawn through this server, it is time-window gated, and it requires user confirmation before proceeding. The returned preview/confirmToken behavior is also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; the final sentence on confirm mode is slightly long but justified by the safety stakes.

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, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger conditions, the failure mode, the confirmation protocol, and the absence of a server-side undo. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value on visit_id provenance and explains why confirmToken exists and when it must never be sent, tying it to the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback rather than leaving it to the schema alone.

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 ('Ask the practice to cancel an upcoming appointment'), names the sibling that supplies the visit id, and clarifies that this files a request rather than cancelling outright. That distinction separates it cleanly from insync_request_appointment and insync_list_appointments.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (only when the user asked and approved the preview), an explicit failure condition (refused once the practice's cancellation period has passed), and a named escape hatch to the alternative flow (preview plus confirmToken). Prompt-injection conditions are called out directly.

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