sms_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It implies a refund is issued and that the call is free, but says nothing about whether cancellation is reversible, whether the refund is immediate or conditional, what happens if the order is already completed, or what authentication/permissions are needed.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with the action, which is good. But the duplicated '(free) (free)' is redundant noise, and the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. The description supplies no return information (refund status? new order state?), no error behavior, and no guidance on obtaining the orderId, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the single required parameter 'orderId' is documented nowhere. The description does not mention the parameter at all, nor the expected ID format (numeric, prefixed, from which sibling's response). The schema alone leaves the agent guessing.

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 ("Cancel an order") plus the consequence ("get the provider refund"), so the agent knows what the tool accomplishes. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling smm_cancel, which appears to do the same thing for a different service family, leaving the scope ('order' of which type?) ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus sms_status, sms_order, or smm_cancel, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the trailing '(free)', which is unexplained. The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely.

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