cancel_user_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a creator-only authorization constraint and the exact auth flow (PROOF_API_KEY or start_login session) needed before the call succeeds. It stops short of describing post-cancel state (e.g., whether proofs are revoked).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the permission constraint immediately after. The ACCESS block is multi-line boilerplate but is genuinely actionable remediation for an auth failure rather than 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, permission scope, and authentication setup adequately. The main missing piece is disambiguation from cancel_verification_request and the resulting state after 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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an explicit description ("Verification request ID to cancel"). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Clear verb+resource ("Cancel a pending verification request") and it states the operation is limited to pending requests. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling cancel_verification_request, and it uses "verification request" phrasing for a tool named cancel_user_request, which risks confusion with that sibling's family.

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?

It gives an important precondition ("Only the creator can cancel") and explains the account/auth prerequisite for calling it. It does not say when to prefer this over cancel_verification_request or other request tools, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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