cancel_verification_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key precondition (pending status) and the auth/access requirement. However, it does not describe side effects, whether cancellation is irreversible, or what happens if the request is already in a different state.

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 description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the state constraint and access note. Every sentence carries useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter cancel operation, the description covers the main state prerequisite and an unusual access requirement. It could add return/error behavior, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter as a 'Verification request ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles it.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('verification request') with a clear state qualifier ('pending'). This cleanly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_verification_request, get_verification_request, and cancel_user_request.

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 provides explicit conditions: only pending requests can be cancelled, and a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY is required. It also warns that start_login does not grant access to this tool. It does not mention alternative cancellation tools, but gives enough context to avoid obvious misuse.

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