Cancel booking

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that a reason is required and stored, and that user confirmation is needed before calling. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them. It does not detail the full side effects (e.g., status change), but the added info is valuable.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the reason requirement and the user-confirmation instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple destructive action with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the requirement of a reason, and the need for user confirmation. It does not mention error handling or post-cancellation effects, but these are not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'reason' is required and stored, giving semantic meaning to that parameter. However, it does not explain 'booking_id' beyond the obvious implication from the action. It partially compensates but leaves booking_id to inference.

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 action (cancel) and the resource (booking), and adds the qualifier 'future confirmed' which distinguishes it from canceling past or unconfirmed bookings. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

It provides clear context: cancel a future confirmed booking, and explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling. It implies when to use (for confirmed future bookings) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. The 'future confirmed' constraint gives practical guidance.

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