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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the refund is credited to the wallet rather than the card, already-printing orders are rejected, and chat-approved sends can be stopped before dispatch. It does not cover idempotency or invalid ID combinations, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 and outcome, but the entire content is duplicated in German and English, roughly doubling the length without adding new semantic information. It is organized well but not concise.

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 both cancellation modes and the wallet-credit side effect well. However, the schema declares zero required parameters, and the description never explicitly states that one of orderId or approvalId must be provided. With no output schema, return behavior is also left unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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 coverage is 75% and the description reinforces the orderId vs approvalId distinction already present in the schema. It adds real-world framing around printing state and timing windows, but it does not explain the 'reasoning' parameter and adds little meaning to 'reason' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Storniert einen Brief') and clearly distinguishes the two invocation modes: orderId for existing orders and approvalId for chat-approved sends. It also names the outcome (credit to wallet), which separates it from siblings like order_send and order_status.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided for both modes: orderId works within the cancellation window, already-printing letters are cleanly rejected, and approvalId stops a chat-approved send within a 10-minute grace window. It never explicitly names alternative tools or says 'use X instead', so it is strong but not maximally complete.

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