Release (cancel & refund) a number

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive/non-read-only. The description adds meaningful detail beyond annotations: the refund is immediate, and if the code has already arrived, nothing is refunded and the code is returned. This conditional behavior helps the agent predict outcomes. No contradiction with idempotentHint or openWorldHint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the conditional exception follows naturally without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description covers the core behavior and an important edge case. The absence of an output schema means the return shape is unspecified, but the mention of 'the code is returned' partially addresses this.

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 documents the only parameter as 'The order_id to release,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description's reference to 'an order' aligns with order_id but adds no extra format or semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel'), a resource (an order), and the accompanying refund action, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling read-status tools like get_number, check_order, and wait_for_otp.

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 gives clear context: use this to cancel an order and process an immediate refund, with an explicit conditional branch when the code has already arrived. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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