cancel_cost_approvalCancel an unused executable quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| approval_token | Yes | estimate_cost token. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Machine-readable outcome code. | |
| canceled | No | True when the quote was canceled. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "canceled": {
+ "description": "True when the quote was canceled.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "code": {
+ "description": "Machine-readable outcome code.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Cancel' aligns with that destructive behavior. It adds the 'unused' condition, implying cancellation is only valid before execution, but it does not describe side effects or irreversibility beyond what annotations imply.
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 six-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning.
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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it leaves undefined what constitutes an 'executable quote', how 'unused' is determined, and what cancellation entails in practice, so an agent may need to infer these details.
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 schema fully documents the single approval_token parameter as an 'estimate_cost token' with min/max length constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('an unused executable quote'), aligning with the title. The action and object distinguish it from siblings like estimate_cost and execute, though the term 'executable quote' is somewhat domain-specific.
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 word 'unused' implies this tool should be used only before a quote has been executed, and the sibling set suggests alternatives like estimate_cost and execute. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.