cancel_bookingPermanently cancel a Hotelbeds booking by providing its reference and confirming the action. Check the cancellation quote first to see any charges.
Permanently cancel a booking. Requires confirm=true. Use get_cancellation_quote first to see the charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to actually cancel — a guard against accidental cancellation. | |
| reference | Yes | Booking reference to cancel. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two key traits: the action is irreversible ('Permanently') and a confirm guard prevents accidental execution. It does not mention auth/permission requirements, refund side effects, or idempotency, so it stops short of full disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, and the irreversible nature plus the confirm requirement are front-loaded ahead of the optional-prerequisite hint. Every clause 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?
For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, guard, and the recommended pre-step. It is largely complete, though it omits what happens on failure or what the cancellation returns (refund/charge confirmation).
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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'Must be true' guard semantics for confirm. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no format or value detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Permanently cancel a booking') and immediately distinguishes the operation from sibling reads like get_booking and get_cancellation_quote through the word 'Permanently'. The scope is unambiguous without consulting the schema.
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?
Names the prerequisite alternative explicitly ('Use get_cancellation_quote first to see the charge') and states the gating condition ('Requires confirm=true'). The agent knows both the sequencing and the guard needed before invoking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.