Stop a no-show recovery

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it warns that a follow-up already being sent may still arrive, documents the 409 booking_recovery_changed conflict, requires an Idempotency-Key for safe retries, and lists required scopes. These details materially improve safe invocation of a destructive, idempotent mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, caveat, and parameter mapping, followed by operational metadata. It is appropriately sized for a destructive mutation with conflict handling, though some operational details are dense and could be separated from the core behavior.

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 mutation's complexity, nested body, annotations, and output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It covers the prerequisite read, conflict case, idempotency, workspace override, and required scopes without needing to explain return values.

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?

The description explains the critical mapping of recovery.id to recoveryCaseId and recovery.outcomeVersion from luca_bookings_recovery_get, and it explains the conflict behavior when the recovery has changed. It also clarifies idempotencyKey and workspace override behavior, adding meaning beyond the nested input 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 states a specific verb and resource: stopping a booking's no-show recovery so no further follow-up is scheduled. It also names luca_bookings_recovery_get as the source of recovery identifiers, distinguishing this tool from the read operation.

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 gives clear usage context and a prerequisite: retrieve recovery.id and recovery.outcomeVersion from luca_bookings_recovery_get before calling. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative beyond the prerequisite read, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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