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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: signers receive a short email and their links stop working, and the action is free. However, with destructiveHint=true it should state whether cancellation is reversible and whether the request record remains retrievable via esign_get; the 'reason' parameter's effect on the notification is unexplained.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraint, with zero padding; even 'Free.' carries a distinct fact.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the user-visible consequence (email + dead links), which is the main thing an agent needs. It omits the reason parameter and whether the caller gets back a cancelled-request object, which are modest gaps.

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 only 50% — request_id documents itself ('the request_id esign_send returned') but 'reason' has no schema description at all. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does nothing to close the gap on the undocumented reason field.

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 (stop/cancel) and the exact resource state it acts on ('a request before everyone has signed'), which cleanly separates it from esign_remind, esign_send, and esign_get in the sibling list.

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?

'Stop a request before everyone has signed' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'Free' hints that cost is not a barrier. It stops short of naming alternatives, e.g. whether to use esign_remind when signers are merely slow.

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