create_cancellation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original invoice is marked as cancelled, if it creates a standalone document, or any permission requirements). The description is just a restatement of the core action.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description conveys the basic purpose, but it lacks details about the return value or the effect on the original invoice. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete for an agent.

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%, and the parameter invoice_id is already described as 'The original invoice UUID'. The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema.

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 ('Create'), the object ('a cancellation invoice'), and the context ('for an invoice'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice and create_credit_note by using the specific German term 'Stornorechnung'.

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 used to cancel an existing invoice, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives such as create_credit_note or update_invoice_status. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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