recurring_transfer_cancel

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses significant behavioral details: SCA requirement, polling behavior, default wait time, fallback mechanism, and token binding for retries. This goes beyond a simple 'cancel' and helps the agent understand the impact.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second sentence adding essential SCA details. No fluff, and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the main behavior (cancellation and SCA handling) adequately. It does not discuss return values, but the SCA flow explanation provides enough context for an agent to handle responses.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the SCA polling behavior for the 'wait' parameter and the role of 'sca_session_token' for binding prior approval. This clarifies the parameters' purpose beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cancel a recurring transfer.' It is specific about the action and resource. Siblings like recurring_transfer_create, recurring_transfer_list, recurring_transfer_show are distinct, so no confusion.

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 context on when to use this tool by explaining the SCA flow: polling inline (default wait=30s), fallback to pending response, and use of sca_session_show + sca_session_token for continuing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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