fail_subscription_contract

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 only states the action without revealing anything about side effects, reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., required current state), or impact on billing. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only one parameter, the description provides no context about when to use it relative to similar subscription contract state-transition siblings (cancel, expire, pause). Given the low complexity, this sparse description is still insufficient for an agent to reliably select this tool over alternatives without additional clues.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter with a description ('Subscription Contract ID to mark as failed'), and the tool description provides no additional parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark') and a specific resource ('subscription contract') with a targeted state ('as failed'), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling operations like cancel, pause, or expire. It clearly conveys the operation's intent in a single concise phrase.

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 implies that it should be used when a subscription contract needs to be marked as failed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cancel_subscription_contract, expire_subscription_contract, or pause_subscription_contract. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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