Preview a freee approved-application cancellation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context beyond these: that the form is validated, that nothing is submitted, and that it returns the original application, cancellation reason, route, and a binding fingerprint. This clarifies the operation's behavior and output without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It avoids repetition of schema details and communicates scope, validation, and return content efficiently.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It names the key return elements (original application, reason, route, fingerprint) and the non-submitting behavior. The complexity is low, and the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema; it only loosely references the cancellation reason and the target application. No new syntax or additional meaning is provided.

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 uses specific verbs ('Open and validate') and a specific resource ('cancellation form for one exact approved personal application'), clearly distinguishing it from submit/commit tools. The phrase 'without submitting it' explicitly differentiates it from commit_cancel.

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 clearly implies this is a preview/validation step before a cancellation commit, stating 'without submitting it'. It specifies the target is 'one exact approved personal application', giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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