Экспресс: условия отмены

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it details the return structure (cancel_state with meanings) and indicates that paid cancellations return price fields. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the tool's role in the cancellation flow.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by return value details. No filler or repetition of schema information, earning its place efficiently.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description completely explains the return values and their implications. Combined with the detailed schema for the single parameter, this tool is fully specified for safe and effective usage.

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?

Input schema description covers 100% of the parameter meaning (claim_id, its length, and source). The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 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 clearly states this tool returns cancellation conditions for a claim and specifies the cancel_state values (free, paid, unavailable). It distinguishes itself from the sibling express_cancel_claim by instructing to call it BEFORE cancellation, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 instructs the agent to call this tool BEFORE express_cancel_claim, providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also implies usage for checking cancelability and pricing, which differentiates it from other siblings like express_get_claim or express_check_price.

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