feegow_cancel_appointment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a write operation and requires a flag, but does not mention side effects (e.g., what happens to the appointment slot, reversibility, or confirmation behavior). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a category tag, write indication, required flag, and HTTP endpoint. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description covers the basic purpose and write nature, but lacks details on prerequisites or implications of cancellation. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only describes the tool overall. The schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Cancela um agendamento existente' (cancels an existing appointment), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_create_appointment and feegow_reschedule_appointment by explicitly indicating cancellation.

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 specifies it is a write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados') and requires the environment flag FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, providing clear context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or discuss when not to use it.

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