Экспресс: отменить заявку

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description warns about financial consequences (paid cancellation fee), version-based concurrency (errors 409), and the ability to cancel confirmed claims. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers prerequisites and error handling in three sentences with no redundancy.

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 financial operation, the description adequately covers prerequisites, fee consequences, and error conditions. It doesn't describe the output, but no output schema exists, and the 100% parameter schema fills the gap.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions and an enum for cancel_state. The description reinforces where to get version and cancel_state but adds little new semantic information beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool cancels a claim, including already confirmed ones, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like express_cancel_info and express_accept_claim by focusing on the cancellation action.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call express_cancel_info first and pass its cancel_state, and to take version from express_get_claim. This provides a clear workflow and prerequisites, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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