Cancel activation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals the financial side effect (refund only if no SMS was received) and the API key requirement. It could further clarify irreversibility or behavior when already completed, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action first followed by the important refund caveat. 'Requires an API key' is slightly generic but not excessive. Overall it is well-structured with no substantial waste.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers the action, the main side effect, and an auth requirement. It does not address edge cases like cancellation after completion, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema already defines id as the activation id. The description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter documentation, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Cancel an activation', which clearly identifies the tool's operation. It also adds a key semantic detail about refunding the wallet, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like complete or email_cancel.

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 provides general context (cancelling an activation and the refund condition) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when cancellation should not be used. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool routing.

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