delete_cancellation_request

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what the tool name states; it does not mention effects on the service, the confirm guard, or any lifecycle restrictions.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parenthetical API name repeats the tool name, which is mildly redundant but does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 two-parameter tool, the schema and annotations cover parameter semantics and safety profile. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral detail, leaving some gaps around when withdrawal is appropriate and what actually happens.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific action, 'отозвать' (withdraw), and a clear resource, 'заявку на отмену услуги' (cancellation request). This distinguishes it from related siblings like request_cancellation and get_cancellation_requests without needing to open schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The verb and resource imply this is the inverse of request_cancellation, and the sibling list provides context, but the agent must infer the usage rather than being told.

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