cancel_project_transfer

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

With no annotations, description discloses authorization constraints, error conditions, and endpoint. Does not mention side effects or irreversibility, but 'cancel' implies permanent change. Good coverage for a simple mutation.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. Action, version, authorization, error case, and endpoint all included efficiently. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

No output schema, so description should cover return value. Does not describe success response (e.g., confirmation or updated transfer status). Only error case documented. Missing context on what happens upon successful cancellation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description repeats authorization requirement from schema for transfer_id but adds no new details beyond schema. Reason parameter not elaborated upon.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'pending project transfer' with additional qualifiers ('of any kind', v1.93+). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_project_transfer.

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?

Describes authorization requirements and when it returns a 409 error for already processed transfers. Implicitly advises against use on accepted/cancelled/expired transfers. Could explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., accept_project_transfer) but still clear.

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