cancel_signature_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior, but it only states the action 'cancel' without explaining effects, reversibility, permissions, or whether it is distinct from deletion. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it very concise. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices valuable context, so it does not reach the level of exemplary conciseness that also informs.

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 existence of sibling tools like delete_signature_request and resend_signature_request, and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent cannot understand the full implications of canceling versus deleting a signature request.

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%, and each parameter (contract_id, request_id) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb+resource ('Cancel a signature request') that communicates the basic action. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool delete_signature_request, so it lacks the specificity needed for an agent to know which one to pick.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_signature_request or update_signature_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without direction.

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