request_cancellation

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it explicitly warns 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО', explains that cancellation_type=1 is immediate with partial refund and 0 is end-of-billing-period, and discloses the environment variable requirement. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, with the purpose stated first, then the destructive warning, then the requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to catch the key facts at a glance.

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 destructive, 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects (destructive modes, requirement). However, it does not explain what the operation returns, whether cancellation requests can be later deleted, or any side effects like billing implications beyond the partial refund. These gaps are notable but not fatal given the schema and annotations.

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 the schemas already describe cancellation_type and confirm. The description largely repeats the enum meanings ('1 — immediate, 0 — end of billing period') already present in the schema, so it adds no meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Запросить отмену услуги' (Request cancellation of service), identifying the specific action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_cancellation_request or get_cancellation_requests, which are about removing or listing cancellation requests, so an agent can differentiate it without opening 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the HOSTKEY_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1 requirement, but it does not name sibling tools like get_cancellation_requests or delete_cancellation_request, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name.

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