Kasra Delete Credit Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the delete/cancel action, but does not disclose that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or that it may fail for already-approved requests. It lacks any behavioral context such as permissions required, side effects, or response format.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. It is concise but repeats the same meaning in Persian and English, which is slightly redundant but not harmful. There is no unnecessary fluff.

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 tool, important context is missing: no mention of which request statuses can be deleted, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to related approvals. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the description lacks operational constraints and failure scenarios.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters, including doc_id from kasra_get_submitted_requests and doc_type_id defaults. The description itself adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema is thorough.

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 clearly states the action: 'Cancel or delete a submitted permission, leave, mission, or remote work request.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It differentiates from the submit tool by the delete/cancel verb, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The bilingual text adds clarity for Persian-speaking agents.

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 implies usage when the user wants to cancel a previously submitted request, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., only for pending requests). There is no mention of prerequisites like authentication or status restrictions.

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