void_documentWithdraw an open document to stop all signing and refund the billable unit if canceled within 10 minutes.
Withdraw an open document so nobody can sign it. Within 10 minutes of sending the billable unit is refunded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effect (nobody can sign) and the billing behavior (refund if voided within 10 minutes of sending), but omits permission requirements, whether the action is reversible, and error behavior for already-signed or closed documents.
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 tight sentences: the core action first, then the billing consequence. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the outcome and refund rule but is silent on permissions, irreversibility, and the meaning of its two bare parameters. Adequate, but gaps remain an agent would want closed.
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 adds nothing about the two parameters. It does not clarify the format of `id` or what `reason` is used for, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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?
States a specific verb and effect: withdraw an open document so nobody can sign it. This is unambiguous and easily separated from siblings like send_document, remind_document, or get_document, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
"Open document" implies a precondition for use, but the description never states when to void versus alternatives such as remind_document or a re-send, nor what to do for non-open documents. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.