cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one important trait beyond the schema — cancelling does not erase the delivery's history — but it is silent on permissions, reversibility, and any side effects on the recipient, which a mutation tool should disclose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and its non-destructive caveat are stated immediately with nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is a state-mutating tool with no annotations, two completely undocumented parameters, and no prerequisites. The single sentence leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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% for two required parameters (recipient, message_id), and the description adds no meaning: it never clarifies whether recipient is a name, address, or identifier, nor what format message_id takes. Because coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it cancels an unfinished delivery, and adds the key qualifier that the delivery's history is preserved. This clearly separates it from a delete-style operation and from the 'history' sibling, but it never names an alternative tool, so distinction from the rest of the queue siblings is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope constraint ('nedokončené' = unfinished), telling the agent this applies only while a delivery is still in flight. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as retry or release, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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