cancel_object_storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the cancellation is scheduled for the next possible date rather than immediate, and timing depends on contract periods. It still doesn't say whether data is retained until the cancellation date, whether the action is reversible, or what state the storage enters.

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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but it is immediately restated verbatim after the endpoint line, and the redundant 'Cancels the specified object storage at the next possible date' phrasing appears three times across description and annotation title. The PATCH endpoint reference is useful; the duplication is dead weight.

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 single-action mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the scheduling semantics, and the contract-related caveat. What remains missing is the resulting resource state and reversibility, which are secondary but relevant for a cancellation operation.

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%, so the schema already documents objectStorageId, the nested body.cancelDate, and x-trace-id; baseline 3 applies. The description could clarify that cancelDate is a requested date constrained by contract terms, but it adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Cancels the specified object storage') plus the timing scope ('at the next possible date'), which distinguishes it from sibling cancellation tools like cancel_instance, cancel_domain, and cancel_ext_check. It stops short of naming those siblings or contrasting their effects, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name.

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 warning 'Please be aware of your contract periods' implies that contract term affects when cancellation takes effect, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as permissions or whether a scheduled cancellation can be revoked (compare revoke_cancel_domain), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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