Cancel receipt

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral nuance: the receipt keeps its number, is marked cancelled, and series has no gap. This goes beyond annotations but could be more detailed about reversibility or post-void state.

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?

Two short paragraphs: first explains action and effect, second gives usage with clear alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and context. Sibling tools are named for disambiguation, and annotations cover safety semantics. Nothing essential is missing.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, which is acceptable. 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?

The description clearly states the tool voids a receipt without removing it, distinguishing it from deletion tools. It specifies the verb 'void' and the resource 'receipt', and differentiates from siblings like delete_payment and delete_receipt.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when a receipt was issued in error.' And it specifies when not to use: for card/bank transfer collections use delete_payment, to remove entirely use delete_receipt. This provides excellent decision support.

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