opentable_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the dry-run behavior (no action without confirm:true) and the prerequisites. It does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., error handling, reversibility), but the key behavioral trait is 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 covers the required workflow but omits return value information and does not discuss edge cases or error handling. The database_region parameter is important but not mentioned in the description, although it is in the schema.

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?

The description adds meaning for three parameters (restaurant_id, confirmation_number, security_token) by noting their source. It does not mention the database_region parameter, which is well-described in the schema. Overall, it partially compensates for the 40% schema coverage.

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 OpenTable reservation,' using a specific verb and resource. The action is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like opentable_book or opentable_modify.

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 tells the agent where to obtain required parameters (from opentable_list_reservations or opentable_book) and explains the dry-run vs. cancellation workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with opentable_modify (for changes instead of cancellation).

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