Отмена встречи

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits such as irreversibility, notifications to all participants, and the unreliable 200 response. However, it directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false by claiming the operation is 'НЕОБРАТИМО' (irreversible). This contradiction makes the description unreliable, warranting a score of 1.

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 extensive but well-structured, starting with the most critical warning (irreversibility), then prerequisites, and a detailed breakdown of the occurrence parameter. Every sentence adds essential context, and the use of bold and short paragraphs improves readability without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Beyond the schema and annotations, this description covers prerequisites, edge cases (recurring meetings), and the tool's post-cancellation verification behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. However, the unexplained `appointment_id` parameter is a minor gap that prevents a perfect score. Overall, it's nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 thoroughly explains the `occurrence` parameter: acceptable formats (date, 'tomorrow', exact timestamp), when to omit for one-time meetings, and when it's mandatory for recurring ones. However, the required `appointment_id` parameter is not explained at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, that omission leaves a significant semantic gap. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema details.

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 'Отменить встречу' (Cancel meeting), identifying the action and resource with specificity. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing cancellation and its irreversible nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 states that the tool works only for the organizer and instructs to ask for confirmation with meeting name and time before invocation. It also differentiates between one-time and recurring meetings, explaining when the occurrence parameter is required, providing clear context for correct usage.

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