void_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core semantics: the record is retained with status VOID and the effect is reversing rather than deleting. However, it does not state whether a void is reversible, what happens to downstream/linked records, or what permissions or error conditions apply to a mutation of this weight.

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 sentences, zero filler, and correctly front-loaded: the verb and effect come first, the sibling disambiguation second, and the safety instruction last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, state outcome, alternative selection, and a confirmation safeguard, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of the irreversibility and failure-mode details that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, with both 'id' and 'voidReason' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail (e.g., whether voidReason is required in practice or has a length limit) beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('Void a deposit') and goes further by naming the resulting state change and its accounting effect ('sets status to VOID with a reversing effect'). It also differentiates itself from the closely related sibling delete_deposit, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use instead of delete for posted deposits') and the condition (posted vs. unposted) that selects it, plus a pre-invocation prerequisite ('Confirm with the user first'). This is the when/when-not/alternative structure at full strength.

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