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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the action cannot be undone, signers are notified by default, notify=false enables silent voiding, and user confirmation is required. This is exactly the kind of extra context that helps an agent handle an irreversible action safely.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding necessary information with no filler. The core action and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by re-send guidance, notify defaults, and the user-confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers all critical operational aspects: what the tool does, irreversibility, signer notification behavior, the re-send path, and the need for user confirmation. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents uuid, notify, and message. The description adds some behavioral nuance around notify (default notified vs. silent) but does not substantially go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel'/'void') and resource ('a sent document') and states the intended effect: 'nobody can sign it anymore.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling send_from_template by explicitly naming it as the way to re-send, so an agent can clearly differentiate this tool from related actions.

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 gives clear context: use this when a sent document must no longer be signable. It names the alternative (send_from_template) for re-sending, explains the notify behavior, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before voiding, which is explicit operational guidance.

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