cancel_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that signers will be notified, which adds some context about side effects, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, whether cancellation is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes a key behavioral note about signer notification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and differentiation from sibling tools. The mention of signer notification is helpful but insufficient to cover the complexity of canceling an envelope.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'envelopeId' fully documented as 'Envelope UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 ('Cancel') and target resource ('a sent envelope'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_envelope' or 'discard_envelope', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_envelope' or 'discard_envelope'. It mentions that 'Signers will be notified', which hints at a post-send context but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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