webshare_cancel_auto_renewal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a non-obvious side effect (saved payment methods are also removed), the resulting state (plan usable until end of current period), and a hard confirmation gate. It does not cover reversibility/re-enabling or whether the payment method can be re-added, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the warning, then the invocation constraint. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the destructive side effect, the effective timing, and the confirm requirement — enough to call it safely. Only the response/return behavior and re-enable path are missing, which are minor here.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema marks confirm as optional with default false, so the description's "必须传 confirm=true" is essential and non-redundant — it tells the agent the parameter is actually a mandatory safety gate that must be set to true. That is real meaning added beyond the schema, though the consequence of passing false is left implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("关闭自动续费" / disable auto-renewal), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like webshare_subscription or webshare_plan. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives an invocation rule ("必须传 confirm=true") and implies the use case (stop recurring billing), but never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as checking subscription state first, nor any prerequisite/exclusion. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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