ReverseCentaur

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains refund policies based on worker assignment status, mentions cancellation fees, describes the response content (refund amount and fees), and warns that the action is irreversible. Annotations only indicate it's destructive and not read-only, so this extra detail is highly valuable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, behavioral details, and a warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive action with financial implications), the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, usage, behavioral outcomes (refunds/fees), and irreversibility. Although there's no output schema, it describes the response content adequately, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (task_id and reason). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('Cancel a previously posted task') with the resource ('task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_task or post_task. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by explaining what cancellation entails.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the task is no longer needed or was posted in error') and provides clear alternatives by naming sibling tools like check_task and post_task, helping the agent choose appropriately between checking, posting, or canceling tasks.

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