sibs_cancel_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a cancellation (mutation) and a key precondition. However, it does not disclose whether cancellation is reversible, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens if called on a captured payment. Minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key constraint immediately following. No wasted words; every part adds essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a critical usage constraint. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the operation is straightforward and the key limitation is stated. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the 'transactionId' parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'SIBS payment authorization'. It also includes a scoping condition ('Only works for payments not yet captured') that helps differentiate it from post-capture operations like capture or refund. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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 a clear context for when the tool is applicable: payments not yet captured. This implies it is not meant for captured payments, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. It gives the essential precondition without routing to siblings.

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