alonomic_cancel_parcel

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it changes a real parcel (destructive), maps to a DELETE operation returning HTTP 204, and requires specific conditions. It does not mention idempotency or rate limits, but provides sufficient insight for safe use.

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 compact, starting with purpose and warning, then prerequisites, HTTP mapping, and parameter docs. Every sentence adds value, and the Persian translation is a nice touch without being verbose.

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 tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, error cases, and parameters. It does not discuss idempotency or retry behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a cancel operation.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining parcel_id as numeric id and instance as configured instance with default. While brief, it provides necessary context beyond the schema types.

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 cancels a parcel before pickup, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like alonomic_create_parcel or alonomic_get_parcel by explicitly focusing on cancellation before pickup.

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 clear prerequisites (credentials, enable_ordering=true, read_only=false) and explains the error response when prerequisites are not met. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., after pickup or using other cancel tools).

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