Cancel paid TLS certificate

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds auth scope ('Requires certificates:manage'), a mandatory human-approval gate, and back-off behaviour on ambiguous results, all of which go beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about what state the order lands in after cancellation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by required preconditions and the permission requirement, with no filler. The intermediate 'read product capabilities / current order' enumeration is slightly procedural but each sentence carries an actionable instruction.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisites, the approval gate, auth scope, and a retry discipline. The main remaining gap is the post-cancellation state and whether the action is reversible, which is minor given the rich annotations.

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 75%, so idempotencyKey, certificate_order_id and acknowledge_certificate_action are already documented in the schema; the description simply hints at approval and idempotent retries. The one undocumented parameter, reason, gets no added meaning from the description. 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?

Specific verb plus a tightly scoped resource: 'Cancel an eligible pending paid TLS certificate order.' The qualifiers 'pending' and 'paid' cleanly separate it from cancel_free_certificate, revoke_free_certificate and cancel_automatic_ssl_subscription without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear pre-flight workflow (read product capabilities, current order, list_certificate_actions, then obtain explicit approval) and a retry rule for ambiguous outcomes, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative action to take instead when the order is not eligible or when cancelling is the wrong move.

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