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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the document), who is affected (signers get notified), and that the action is irreversible. That is precisely the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot express.

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?

One sentence plus a short imperative clause; the destructive consequence is front-loaded before the confirmation instruction. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation this covers the essential risks and prerequisites, and no output schema exists to explain. It stops short of saying what the call returns or what the agent should report back after cancellation, which would close the last gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single request_id parameter already carries a description naming its source (list_signature_requests). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a signature request') and immediately enumerates the concrete effects: signing blocked, signers notified, document deleted. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like revoke_share or close_request_page purely from the text.

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?

Adds an explicit precondition ('confirm with the human first') that tells the agent when this call requires a confirmation gate. It doesn't, however, point to alternatives for the milder cases (e.g., remind_signer or get_signature_request to verify state first), so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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