cancel_reservation

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

Annotations already signal destructive intent. The description adds value by disclosing the side effect of stopping the keepalive task, which is not evident from annotations alone. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and key qualifier, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description covers the essential use case and side effects. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but the destructive hint already implies that.

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?

With only one parameter and schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by clarifying that 'token' is the identifier used to cancel the reservation. It lacks format or origin details, but for a single string this is largely sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'cancel' with a clear resource ('reservation') and identifier ('by token'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reserve' or 'list_reservations', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a reservation token and want to end that reservation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for releasing a place), nor does it name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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