delete_cancellation_request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the semantic context that this is a withdrawal/reversal action, which is useful. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the request is already processed, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 includes the verb, resource, and API method name. It is front-loaded with the action word and contains no filler. It could arguably omit the API method name, but that is minor.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship to request_cancellation or get_cancellation_requests, nor does it clarify what 'confirm' semantically means beyond the schema's 'must be true' note. An agent would benefit from knowing this is the inverse of request_cancellation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 verb ('Отозвать' = withdraw/revoke) and a specific resource ('заявку на отмену услуги' = service cancellation request), and it names the underlying API method. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_cancellation and get_cancellation_requests, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies the tool is for withdrawing a previously submitted cancellation request, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the request must exist and be in a cancellable state).

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