amber_cancel_account_deletion

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses side effects (clears deletion_scheduled_at), explains that data is not lost, describes access until next_billing_date, clarifies that PayPal subscription was already cancelled, and states it is not rate-limited. This comprehensive coverage surpasses typical descriptions.

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 three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second covers side effects and access, and the third addresses edge cases and rate limiting. No superfluous words, perfectly 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, side effects, return value note, rate limits, and related tools. It is fully self-contained and leaves no gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter information to add. Following the guideline (0 params = baseline 4), the score is 4, as the description adds context about the tool's effect but cannot add parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Cancel a previously scheduled account deletion'), uses specific verb (cancel) and resource (account deletion), and distinguishes from siblings like amber_delete_account (which schedules deletion) and amber_reactivate_subscription (for re-subscribing).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (cancel a pending deletion) and mentions alternatives ('call amber_reactivate_subscription' if paid period expired). Also notes the return code 'not_scheduled' for cases where no deletion is pending, providing clear context for appropriate use.

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