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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by stating the operation is irreversible and gated on specific statuses, which tells the agent the consequence of a wrong call. It does not describe what happens to dependent records or documents, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the risk. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things that matter most: the status gate and irreversibility. Only the post-cancellation state of related artifacts is left unstated.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already carries the op_fm_* format and the status precondition. The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a formation') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_formation or retry_formation. The scope is unambiguous and an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — only valid from draft or pending_owner_confirmation status — which effectively tells the agent when the tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. retry_formation for failed formations), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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