Cancel a credential 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 explicitly discloses a critical side effect: 'Any credential already entered is destroyed.' This is valuable transparency for a destructive mutation. However, it doesn't mention other effects like whether cancellation is reversible or requires special permissions.

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 long, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core action ('Cancel a pending request') followed by a key consequence. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values or error conditions. While it covers the key destructive behavior, it lacks guidance on when to use the reason parameter, potential side effects beyond credential destruction, and any prerequisites. For a security-related tool, more context would be helpful, but the essential purpose is clear.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It doesn't mention that request_id is required or that reason is optional. The schema itself provides clear names, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer that request_id identifies the request and reason is for audit context.

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 'Cancel a pending request' which is a specific verb (cancel) and resource (request). It distinguishes from siblings like secret.store and secret.revise, as it focuses on cancellation and the destruction of already-entered credentials.

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 the tool is for pending requests ('Cancel a pending request') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor exclusions. It lacks context like 'use secret.revise to modify instead' or 'do not use for completed requests'.

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