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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the first call is explicitly non-mutating, the second call writes, a confirm boolean is ignored, and the token expires in five minutes and works once. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and confirmation transparency an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers the two-step confirmation flow, token lifetime, and single-use behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, and the complexity justifies the length.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirmation mechanics and side-effect boundaries well. It could be more complete by stating prerequisites or the downstream consequences of cancellation, but the key invocation behavior is clear.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it thoroughly explains confirm_token semantics, including omission on the first call and reuse on the second. return_id is not described, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool name; the note about an ignored confirm boolean is extra useful context.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Cancel a return." It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as delete_return or other cancel_* tools, so it is strong but not fully sibling-aware.

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 two-step invocation flow is explained in useful detail, especially the role of confirm_token and the fact that the first call is non-mutating. However, it never says when to use cancel_return versus alternatives like delete_return or receive_return, so alternative routing is only implied.

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