Cancel deal

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that the action is irreversible and, crucially, that the first call writes nothing and only returns a preview plus confirm_token. The instruction to show the preview and re-call with identical arguments is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, irreversibility, then the two-step protocol front-loaded with the critical constraint. No filler.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: state constraints, irreversibility, and the full preview/confirm lifecycle including what the first call returns. An agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 only 33%, with `deal_id` and `reason` undocumented in both schema and description. The description does explain the confirm_token two-step semantics, but that meaning is largely already present in the schema's confirm_token description, so it adds only marginal value and leaves the other two params unaddressed.

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 (cancels) plus resource (deal) and narrows the applicable state to `offered` or `accepted` deals. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like respond_to_offer or delete_creator.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use (only offered/accepted deals) and an explicit invocation protocol for the two-step flow. It does not name an alternative tool, but no obvious sibling performs the same job, so context is otherwise sufficient.

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