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

With no annotations, the description mentions the ownerKey requirement, which is a behavioral precondition. However, it does not disclose possible irreversibility, effects on the signing process, or other side effects, leaving the agent with limited behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It communicates the core action and a key requirement efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key precondition but omits important context like irreversibility, return behavior, or error conditions. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, with both parameters already described. The description adds emphasis on ownerKey being essential but does not provide any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the action (Storniert/annulliert) and the resource (Signier-Vorgang), making it obvious this tool cancels a signing process. It distinguishes itself from sibling envelope_* tools, which deal with creation, status, and uploads.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to cancel a signing process) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Nur mit ownerKey' note is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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