void_envelope

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the envelope status change to VOIDED, signer notifications, audit trail recording, and failure conditions. 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use, and what happens after. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the action, side effects, preconditions, failure modes, and post-void options. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning to the 'reason' parameter: it explains its inclusion in cancellation notices, audit events, and webhooks, and recommends providing one. The 'id' parameter is also implicitly explained in context.

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 starts with 'Void (cancel) an in-progress envelope,' clearly stating the action and resource. There is no sibling tool with similar purpose (e.g., cancel_envelope), so it stands alone.

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?

States when to use ('when the sender needs to cancel a contract that has already been sent'), what prerequisites to check ('use get_envelope first to check status'), and notes failure cases for already COMPLETED or VOIDED. Also suggests a post-void deletion option.

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