qualto_cleanup_claim

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 does reveal that the tool cancels an order, indicating a destructive side effect, but it does not mention irreversibility, the meaning of confirm_live_write, what happens when no matching claim/order exists, or any other consequences of the operation.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and keeps the resource and scope immediate, which is appropriate for this tool.

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?

Despite having only two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a potentially destructive operation. It omits the semantics of confirm_live_write, fails to explain the claim object structure, and provides no warning about side effects or preconditions. An agent would likely need to guess important call details.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds that the claim object identifies the order, but the schema's actual 'claim' parameter is an object with additionalProperties true, not a simple claim ID, and the description does not clarify the required shape of that object or the role of confirm_live_write.

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 states a specific operation ('cancel that exact order') and identifies the resource ('orphan order' by 'claim ID'). It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling tools, though 'resolve' is a slightly vague verb and the description does not explicitly contrast it with the attest/verify 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qualto_attest_claim or qualto_verify_receipts. The phrase 'orphan order' implies some context, but it does not explain what constitutes an orphan order, when cleanup is appropriate, or when this tool should be avoided.

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