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

annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so 'This cannot be undone' largely restates structured data. What the description does add is the HTTP endpoint mapping and, implicitly, that cancellation is a terminal state transition rather than a pause. It does not say whether signers are notified by default or what a successful response contains.

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 front-loaded fragments with no filler; the destructive nature and the resource are stated first. The raw API endpoint is of marginal value to an agent and is the one element that could be cut.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description should say what state the sign request ends in and whether the call fails for already-completed requests. Parameters are covered by the schema, but preconditions and return behavior are absent.

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%: sign_request_id even points back to stiply_list_sign_requests, and notify_signers and cancellation_message are fully documented. The description adds nothing about parameters, so 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 sign request') with a 'WRITE:' prefix that immediately classifies the operation. None of the sibling tools (extend_term, send_reminder, get_*) do the same thing, so an agent can route here 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?

The description gives no preconditions (e.g., only pending sign requests can be cancelled) and names no alternatives such as stiply_extend_term when the signer just needs more time. The irreversibility warning hints the tool is a last resort, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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