İptal Talebi Oluştur

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

Lacking annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (create request) but doesn't disclose consequences (e.g., whether it immediately cancels the document, requires approval, changes document status, or has side effects).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and object. No wasted words, but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what happens after request creation, the return value (e.g., request ID), and prerequisites (e.g., document must be signed). It fails to provide this context.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Creates a cancellation request', 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?

Description clearly states it creates a cancellation request for a signed document. The verb 'oluşturur' and resource 'iptal talebi' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'gib_objection_request' (objection request). Nonetheless, the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gib_objection_request'. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for cancellation (e.g., only after document is finalized).

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