request_cancellation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial context: immediate cancellation may trigger a partial refund, and the operation requires an environment flag. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the consequence and prerequisite.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and the cancellation_type semantics are packed efficiently.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what happens with each type, the refund possibility, and the required environment flag. It doesn't describe the response format, but that's a minor gap for a request-type tool.

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 all parameters. The description adds the refund consequence for cancellation_type=1 and the HOSTKEY_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE requirement, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for id, confirm, or terminate_reason_custom. 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 clearly states the action ('Запросить отмену услуги') and the resource (WHMCS service cancellation), and distinguishes the two cancellation modes. It also names the WHMCS endpoint, which helps identify the tool among many 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 explains when to use each cancellation_type (immediate vs end-of-billing-period) and warns that destructive operations require HOSTKEY_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the destructive warning and mode distinction provide clear usage context.

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