Cancel an appointment

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with mutation. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notifies attendees, rejects requests lacking either attendeeId or cancelAll, and distinguishes response types (attendee_removed vs. cancelled). This proactively discloses key side effects, though it does not discuss cancelEntireSeries behavior or reverting actions.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action and notification effect, then immediately explains the two key usage modes and the rejection condition. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main cancellation behaviors but omits the cancelEntireSeries parameter, which is crucial for recurring appointments. While the output schema exists and may detail responses, the description does not guide agents on when to use cancelEntireSeries vs. cancelAll. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters), this gap leaves some ambiguity for recurring scenarios, so completeness is adequate but not full.

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 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, but the description enhances understanding of attendeeId and cancelAll by explaining their exclusive roles and the rejection rule when both are absent. This adds value beyond the schema's simple descriptions. It does not elaborate on reason or cancelEntireSeries, but the schema covers those sufficiently, so the parameter semantics are well addressed.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'appointment', and adds that it notifies attendees, making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes between canceling a single attendee and the whole appointment, which differentiates it from sibling tools like reschedule_appointment or book_appointment. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear usage conditions for group bookings: attendeeId removes one person while cancelAll cancels the whole appointment, and requests with neither are rejected. This guides when to use which parameter. However, it omits the cancelEntireSeries parameter for recurring appointments and does not mention alternatives like reschedule_appointment, so it is not fully comprehensive but still offers strong situational guidance.

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