cancel_booking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is needed via a cookie or environment variable and mentions a cancellation policy option, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior in terms of side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible, confirmation messages, or error handling), leaving gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is structured clearly, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the booking ID sourcing into a single sentence without repetition.

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 complexity (a mutation with authentication and policy considerations), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job covering usage and parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/error responses), which the output schema might address but isn't described here.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: booking_id (with an example ID and how to obtain it), cookie (authentication details and fallback), and skip_cancellation_policy (default behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('cancel') and resource ('room booking') using the DiSH API. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (book_room and check_availability_and_list_bookings) by focusing on cancellation rather than creation or checking availability.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you need to cancel a booking and have the booking ID. It also specifies how to obtain the booking ID (using the check_availability tool), offering a clear alternative for that prerequisite step.

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