cancel_approval

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation is irreversible, a revoke takes effect immediately, and it returns a sign_url that must be shown to the person for downstream services to refuse. That downstream action is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and its scope are front-loaded, followed by irreversibility and the return-value consequence in descending order of importance.

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 correctly compensates by disclosing the returned sign_url and what to do with it. Combined with the irreversibility warning, it fully equips an agent to invoke and act on this tool.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from request_approval, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the parameter beyond what is already structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verbs (withdraw, revoke) and distinguishes the two target resources: a pending request versus an approved standing approval. An agent can tell it apart from get_approval or use_standing_approval 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 clear conditions for each mode ('a request that is still waiting' vs 'an approved standing approval'), which is strong context. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead when the approval is neither pending nor standing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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