ride_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers almost nothing. '(dry-run)' hints at absence of real side effects, yet this is unexplained and conflicts with the plain reading of 'Cancel', and nothing is said about the token/state/confirm parameters or authorization requirements.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but this brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline, so it is only minimally acceptable.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, described in six words. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly — required vs optional params, dry-run semantics, confirm behavior — is present.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The meaning of ride_id, reason, confirm, state, and token is left entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 ('Cancel a live ride'), which is better than a tautology, but the parenthetical '(dry-run)' is ambiguous about whether this tool always simulates or merely supports a simulation mode. It also does not differentiate itself from the many sibling ride tools such as ride_status or ride_track.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The description never says under what conditions an agent should cancel versus check ride_status or ride_history first.

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