ihg_cancel_reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn about the cancellation policy, hinting at potential consequences, and notes the login requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state that cancellation is destructive or irreversible, nor does it describe what happens after cancellation (e.g., confirmation or refund).

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 concise, with three short sentences each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting the login prerequisite, and advising on policy check. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, earning a top score.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description should cover essential context. It includes login requirements and a policy warning, but omits expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation of cancellation, refund information). For a destructive action, more clarity about the effect would improve completeness.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'confirmation_number' with description 'IHG confirmation number to cancel.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Cancel an IHG hotel reservation' with a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('IHG hotel reservation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ihg_modify_reservation or ihg_book_room. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Requires login' as a prerequisite and advising to 'Check cancellation policy before cancelling.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the login and policy requirements give practical guidance on when the tool can be invoked.

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