Cancel an app (stop it and stop paying)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the destructive end state (expires in ~1 hour, then uninstalled everywhere), the cost implication (signs and pays the usually minimal update), and the dry-run behavior of confirm=false. It stops short of stating irreversibility, refundability, or required auth/scopes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what happens, then the network consequence, then the confirm semantics. No filler and each clause adds decision-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the divergent return behavior for confirm true vs false, plus the side effects. It lacks details on timing guarantees, irreversibility, and permissions, which matter for a destructive billing operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for confirm: true means sign and pay, false returns the plan instead of mutating. The 'name' parameter is left to obvious inference, so the semantic gap is narrow but not fully closed.

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 ('Ends an app early') and goes further to explain the mechanism (term update so it expires within about an hour, then network-wide uninstall). The title's 'stop it and stop paying' plus the term mechanics distinguish it from a generic control/stop sibling like flux_control_app.

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?

Usage is implied through the confirm flag (commit-and-pay vs plan preview), which tells the agent how to use it safely, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over flux_control_app or other lifecycle tools, nor any stated prerequisites. Adequate but leaves sibling selection to inference.

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