cancel_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the destructive effect ('All pending applications will be rejected') and an authorization requirement ('Only the agent who created the listing can cancel it'). It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but covers critical aspects for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and consists of three concise sentences, each adding essential information (action, effect, authorization). There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key points without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavioral effects, and usage constraints. It could improve by mentioning the return value or error cases, but given the simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), it is largely complete and helpful for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or constraints for 'listing_id' or 'agent_key'). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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') and resource ('an open listing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_listing' or 'get_listing'. It specifies the scope ('open listing') and the effect ('All pending applications will be rejected'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 for when to use it ('Only the agent who created the listing can cancel it'), which implicitly guides usage by stating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'pause_listing' if available), which prevents a perfect score.

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