cancel_service

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'schedules teardown of the service' and explains the two cancellation types ('immediate' vs 'end_of_term'). It also mentions the required scope 'services:write'. No contradiction with 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?

The description is succinct (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and scope. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. Structure supports quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral aspects for a destructive tool (scope, timing, confirmation). However, it lacks information about the return value or what happens after cancellation (e.g., creates a ticket). Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds practical guidance: 'service_id from list_services', 'Pass confirm:true only after the user has explicitly approved', and clarifies the 'type' enum as timing options. This enhances usability beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('File a cancellation request') and the resource ('for a service'), specifying the scope requirement and the destructive nature. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like destroy_service or stop_service by detailing the two cancellation timing types.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for cancellation, requiring explicit user approval via 'confirm:true'. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the destructive hint and confirmation requirement imply cautious use.

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