tally_cancel_voucher

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses that this call mutates nothing, that it returns a confirmToken plus the exact pending write, that confirmation must be user-driven, and that the cancelled voucher keeps its number. That is precisely the behavior an agent needs and could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and its distinguishing semantics, then inputs, then the write protocol. Three short paragraphs, each carrying distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (the would-be write plus a confirmToken) and the exact next step. For a destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world mutation it supplies the approval gate, the follow-up tool, and the non-obvious state effect of cancelling.

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% and every parameter is already documented there, including the source read for guid and currentDate and the narration linkage for reason. The description restates those facts in prose rather than adding format, constraint, or edge-case detail, so it earns only the baseline.

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 (CANCEL a voucher in TallyPrime) and immediately describes the distinguishing semantics: number retained, marked cancelled, amounts excluded, no gap in the series. It explicitly contrasts itself with the delete sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Prefer this to deleting when a posted entry has to be voided') plus the full two-step call protocol: this tool only previews, the user must approve the preview, and tally_confirm_write is required with the returned token. It also states the precondition for inputs (guid and currentDate from tally_get_vouchers).

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