void_referral

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

Goes beyond the annotations by spelling out irreversibility and the mandatory two-step preview/confirmToken handshake — critical context an agent cannot get from destructiveHint alone. It stops short of naming required permissions or what the preview returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversible consequence, then the procedural detail. No 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 destructive write with no output schema, the description covers consequence, workflow, and confirmation. Minor gaps remain: what the preview shows, token expiry, and failure modes for an invalid or missing token.

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 67% and referralId has no schema description; the description compensates by explaining the confirm/confirmToken protocol and that the token originates from the preview call, which is the non-obvious coupling between the three parameters.

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 ('Void a referral') and the distinguishing effect ('future payments earn nothing'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like pause_referral, resume_referral, and approve_referral.

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 permanence note implies this is a last-resort action, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with pause_referral or states preconditions (e.g., which referral states can be voided). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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