cancel_reservation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, carrying the safety profile. The description adds one useful non-obvious detail—that canceling also stops the keepalive task—but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to in-flight operations. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate, not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main side effect, with the parameter note following. Every clause carries information; only the escaped-whitespace formatting detracts slightly from polish.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the destructive/non-idempotent profile. What remains—the keepalive side effect and the alias clarification—is stated, making the definition sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%, and reservation_id has no schema description, so the description meaningfully compensates by declaring it required and explaining that token is its deprecated alias. This resolves the alias relationship and intended usage that the schema alone leaves ambiguous.

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 ('reservation') and adds a concrete secondary effect: stopping its keepalive task. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like release_place or release_from, which could plausibly be confused with reservation lifecycle operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to cancel vs. alternatives such as release_from, release_place, or simply letting a reservation expire. No prerequisites or conditions are given, so the agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.

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