yolculuk_iptal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels an active journey, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't describe consequences (e.g., cancellation fees, notifications), permissions required, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence ('Aktif yolculuğu iptal et') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool (cancelling journeys) with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what happens after cancellation, error conditions, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), with 'yolculuk_id' and 'iptal_nedeni' documented but 'saglayici' lacking a description. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, not explaining what 'saglayici' (provider) means or how 'iptal_nedeni' (cancellation reason) is used. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 'Aktif yolculuğu iptal et' clearly states the action (iptal et/cancel) and target resource (aktif yolculuğu/active journey), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yolculuk_durumu' (journey status) and 'yolculuk_gecmisi' (journey history) by focusing on cancellation rather than querying. However, it doesn't specify what type of journey (e.g., taxi ride) beyond context from sibling names, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., only for active journeys), exclusions (e.g., not for completed journeys), or relationships to siblings like 'yolculuk_durumu' for checking status first. Usage is implied by the name and context but not explicitly stated.

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