Delivery: cancel parcel [sandbox v1]

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is clearly destructive. The description adds behavioral details: the two-step cancellation process and the prerequisite that only specific parcels are eligible, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) yet covers purpose, process, prerequisites, scope, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 is a sandbox-only cancellation with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: eligible parcels, sandbox limitation, and distinction from a similar tool. The annotations further cover behavioral hints, making the tool fully understandable 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 that the tool cancels a test parcel in the sandbox, specifying the process (initiates acceptance prohibition then cancels). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool delivery_sandbox_cancel_parcel by noting the different contract (options vs actor field).

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 usage context: only for sandbox parcels created via delivery_create_sandbox_parcel_v2, and only available in Sandbox. It mentions the sibling tool but does not fully elaborate on when to choose each, though the field difference implies distinct use cases.

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