Cancelar la emisión

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive, retry-safe mutation. The description adds the specific behavior of canceling a pending confirmation and clarifies that ARCA is not affected, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with the annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and structured effectively.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and a key side-effect (ARCA untouched). However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or the exact effect on the draft, and it does not explain the parameters, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters token or borrador_id at all. It relies entirely on the parameter names, which are only slightly self-explanatory. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer without any guidance.

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 a specific action (cancels pending confirmation) and a resource (the card), and distinguishes itself from ARCA-related operations. It differentiates from siblings like confirmar_emision by specifying it is 'solo para la tarjeta' and does not touch ARCA.

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 context ('Solo para la tarjeta') and explicitly notes it does not touch ARCA, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit exclusion criteria beyond the card scope, leaving some inference to the agent.

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