Cancel a booking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds genuinely new context: required OAuth scopes, the data-sensitivity level, the hard confirm gate, and the server-generated idempotency key fallback. It stops short of saying whether a cancellation can be undone or what downstream effects it triggers.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then stacks short metadata lines (operation, scopes, idempotency, confirm, workspace) that are each scannable. Slight redundancy with the schema's own confirm and idempotencyKey descriptions, but no wasted prose.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers auth, the confirm gate, retry semantics and workspace scoping, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is the real-world consequence detail (reversibility, notifications/automations fired on cancel).

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a point above it by explaining that idempotencyKey exists for safe retries (or is auto-generated) and that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. The id parameter's UUID semantics remain schema-only, but that is adequately documented there.

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 and resource ("Cancel a booking") and pins it to the concrete operation DELETE /api/bookings/{id}. Against siblings like luca_bookings_update, luca_bookings_get, and luca_bookings_lifecycle_resolution, an agent can immediately tell this is the cancellation path.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for calling it (required scopes, Idempotency-Key, mandatory confirm: true) and explains how to target a non-default workspace. It does not, however, name an alternative for related intents such as rescheduling or lifecycle resolution, so the agent must infer when cancellation is the wrong choice.

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