Cancel a waiver claim

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds useful context: it requires ESPN_S2 and ESPN_SWID credentials, it cancels a 'pending' claim (not an executed one), and dryRun previews without posting. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the scope of the destructive action and the auth requirement.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action and key parameter, the defaults, and the dryRun behavior plus auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it cancels, how to identify the claim, defaults, dryRun, and auth. It doesn't explicitly state what happens if the claim is not pending or if the transactionId is invalid, but that's a minor gap for a cancellation tool with an output schema.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning for the key parameter (transactionId) by specifying it comes from get_transactions. It also clarifies the defaults for teamId and week, which are already in the schema but reinforced. The dryRun parameter is described in both schema and description. The description doesn't add much for week/teamId beyond the schema, but the transactionId provenance is valuable.

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 a pending waiver claim'), the specific resource ('using its ESPN transactionId from get_transactions'), and the context (ESPN fantasy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_waiver_claim by focusing on cancellation of a pending claim. The title and description align well.

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 context: it tells the agent to use the transactionId from get_transactions, and explains defaults for teamId and week. It also mentions dryRun for previewing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., when to use submit_waiver_claim instead), though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.

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