Cancel an appointment

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the time slot is released to other people and the action is irreversible, which justifies the confirmation requirement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the consequence and the input source. No filler, and every clause is actionable.

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 one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its irreversibility, the confirmation workflow, and where the ID comes from. Only a note on failure modes (invalid or already-cancelled appointment_id) 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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the provenance of appointment_id (from list_my_appointments), adding no format or constraint detail beyond it, 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 (cancel) and resource (upcoming appointments) scoped to the configured customer. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like book_appointment and list_my_appointments, and it names the sibling that supplies its input.

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 clear preconditions: confirm with the person first, and obtain appointment_id from list_my_appointments. It does not state exclusions or edge cases (e.g. already-cancelled or past appointments), so it falls just short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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