cancel_verification_request

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the state precondition (pending only) and the account/auth prerequisite (Proof account plus PROOF_API_KEY with a server restart). It does not describe what happens to state after cancellation, but the key blockers to a successful call are disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences leading with the action and precondition, followed by a clearly separated ACCESS block. Nothing is redundant, though the access block's phrasing is slightly informal for a tool definition.

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 one-parameter mutation with destructiveness already declared in annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites and state constraint. An agent knows what it needs before calling and what condition the target must satisfy.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Verification request ID'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, ID source, or lookup guidance, making this a baseline case rather than a value-add.

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 pending verification request') with an immediate scope qualifier. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never contrasts itself with the near-neighbour 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?

Gives an explicit applicability rule ('Only pending requests can be cancelled') and a useful negative routing hint ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), which prevents a common dead end. It stops short of naming cancel_user_request or list_verification_requests as the ways to find cancellable IDs.

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