smm_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the operation is free and the refund arrives as panel credit rather than a cash refund. It omits whether cancellation is reversible, what happens on failure, and any auth/rate-limit context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and eligibility condition, which is good. But '(free)' is redundantly repeated twice, indicating sloppy composition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility cost and refund destination, which are the essentials. It still leaves the parameter undocumented and the post-cancellation state undescribed.

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% and the single required parameter orderId has no description. The description says nothing about where orderId comes from or its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Cancel') and resource ('an order') with a scoping condition ('that has not started yet'). The smm_ prefix distinguishes it from the sibling sms_cancel even though the description text itself does not name alternatives.

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 eligibility condition ('has not started yet') implies when the tool applies, which is useful routing signal. However, it names no alternative for cancelling a started order and gives no prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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