opentable_cancel_reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the irreversible nature ('This action cannot be undone.') and explains the preview vs. execute mechanism. However, it omits potential error conditions or side effects, which would have pushed the score to 5.

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 three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the action, explain parameter usage, and warn about irreversibility. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 cancellation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it does, how to use the confirm flag for preview, and the permanence of the action. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or post-cancellation behavior, but these are less critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 already comprehensively describes both parameters (100% coverage), including the preview/cancel semantics for 'confirm' and the source of 'reservationId'. The description's mention of 'confirm=false to preview' adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Cancel') and specific resource ('existing reservation'), unambiguously defining the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opentable_make_reservation and opentable_get_reservations by its unique cancellation purpose.

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 explicit usage context by explaining the two-step process: 'Set confirm=false to preview, confirm=true to actually cancel.' This guides the user on how to use the confirm parameter. It does not mention alternative tools, but cancellation has no direct sibling, making the guidance sufficient.

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