es__cancel_verifactu_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only describes the output type (cancellation record) but does not disclose behavioral traits like destructive nature (cancellation is likely irreversible), authorization needs, or how the record is submitted. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and key technical details. It is concise with no redundant information, earning its place.

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 complexity of cancellation in a chain of records, the description does not explain the concept of 'encadenado a la secuencia de huellas' or what happens after generation (e.g., submission). Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on the result, but it does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so 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 generates a cancellation record for VERI*FACTU with specific indicators (IndicadorAnulacion=S, TipoHuella=01) and that it chains to the current hash sequence. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool es__generate_verifactu_record, which likely creates non-cancellation records.

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?

The description implies the tool is for cancellation records but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as the existence of an original record to cancel, and does not mention when not to use it.

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