signature_request_cancel

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

The description discloses irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and the 'active' state restriction, which are not fully captured by annotations. The annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The added context about no further signing and irreversibility goes beyond the structured data without contradiction.

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 four short sentences, each delivering distinct information: action, consequence, use case, prerequisite, and irreversibility. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place and the front-loaded action makes it immediately scannable.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and irreversibility, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further context.

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 already provides complete parameter documentation with 100% coverage: the signatureRequestId is described as 'MANDATORY. UUID of the signature request. Obtain from create_signature_request.' The tool description's 'Requires: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId' merely echoes the schema description, adding no new semantic detail. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 an active signature request' with the consequence 'no further signing can occur.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_signature_request and get_signature_request, and the verb 'cancel' + resource 'signature request' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly provides the use case: 'Use when a request was activated in error or is no longer needed.' It also gives a prerequisite chain ('Requires: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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