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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the status restriction but does not explain consequences of cancellation, whether it is reversible, required permissions, or what happens to a sent contract after cancellation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence restates the first restriction, introducing slight redundancy, but overall there is no wasted or irrelevant detail.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool, the description provides the essential eligibility condition. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it is missing details about return behavior, side effects, and the contract_id format, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain contract_id or the expected pattern. The parameter name and context imply what it refers to, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema-level explanation of format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('contract') and constrains the action to draft or sent contracts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like contract_create, contract_send, and contract_update.

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 states an explicit eligibility boundary: only draft and sent contracts can be cancelled. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other statuses, so it stops short of a 5.

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