Cancel a subscription

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

Even though annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: cancellation ends access, cannot be undone from here, and the tool refuses to run without confirm:true. It also warns against setting confirm merely to bypass a refusal, which is important ethical and operational guidance.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and irreversibility, then moves to the key alternative and confirmation constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly: what it does, how it differs from the sibling, the irreversibility, and the confirmation gate. Required parameters are documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents account, confirm, and order_id. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: permanently cancel a customer's subscription. It clearly distinguishes this from pause_subscription by emphasizing irreversibility and permanent loss of access. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from nearby 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?

It explicitly names pause_subscription as the right alternative when the customer might return, giving a concrete decision rule. It also clarifies the confirm:true requirement and instructs when that flag should be set, which is actionable guidance for correct invocation.

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