beel_cancel_representation

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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation. It states that a company with no active representation is rejected with 400, implying that a second call after a successful cancellation fails, which conflicts with idempotency. This is an annotation contradiction. The description does add useful details (e.g., consequences and state-transition nature) but the contradiction undermines transparency, so it scores 1.

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 short paragraphs and an endpoint line. The main action is front-loaded, and the consequences are explained in a few sentences. It avoids excessive detail while covering the essential points. It is appropriately concise without being vague.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and effects. It mentions what happens on cancellation (cannot submit invoices) and what remains untouched (activation and non-VeriFactu invoices). However, it fails to clarify idempotency, which is relevant given the annotation, and does not indicate what a successful response looks like. While not extensive, the gaps are not critical for a simple state transition, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 contains a 100% description coverage for company_id, including context about the BeeL-Active-Company header and error scenarios. The tool description does not add any parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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: 'Cancels the active AEAT representation of a company (NIF).' It identifies the specific resource (AEAT representation) and the target (company NIF), and distinguishes itself from siblings like beel_generate_representation and beel_get_representation by focusing on cancellation. The first sentence alone is sufficient to understand the tool's unique purpose.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: the cancellation prevents invoice submission to AEAT until a new document is generated and signed. It also implicitly excludes use when there is no active representation (rejected with 400). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', but the context implies that a new representation can be generated afterward. This is clear enough for an agent.

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