propose_cancellation

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that 'nothing is sent until apply_plan', clarifying that this is a proposal step, not an actual cancellation. This is not present in the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false). The description also clarifies the amendment-only option. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and the critical apply_plan dependency. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not waste words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a proposal tool: it defines the action, the optional scope, and the key workflow constraint. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing booking), but given the simplicity and the sibling context, it is adequately complete.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description essentially reiterates the amendment_only parameter's purpose ('or of its pending amendment only') without adding new details. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the description provides minimal additional value, consistent with the baseline of 3 for high 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 a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('cancellation'), and explicitly distinguishes between cancelling the whole booking or just the pending amendment via the 'amendment_only' parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools like propose_booking and propose_change, which are for creation and modification.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to cancel) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does note that nothing is sent until apply_plan, which gives context about the workflow, but it doesn't guide the agent on when to prefer this over propose_change or other siblings.

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