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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the cascading side effect (open signature request cancelled, link stops working) and the state constraint blocking approved orders. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether cancellation is reversible, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first covers the action and its side effect, the second covers the restriction and the remedy. No filler and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers side effects, eligibility, and the alternative path, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'reason' parameter.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. The 'reason' parameter is never mentioned, and change_order_id is only implied by the tool's purpose rather than explained (e.g., what states/IDs are acceptable).

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 (cancel) and resource (change order) plus the scope of eligible states (draft or sent). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like changes_create, changes_send, and signatures_cancel by naming the downstream signature-request effect.

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?

Explicitly states the when (draft or sent change orders), the when-not (approved change orders cannot be cancelled), and the alternative procedure (write a new change order that takes the work back out). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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