Cancel contract

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context by explicitly warning 'DESTRUCTIVE: this cancels live services', which clarifies the real-world impact. It also notes the requirement to provide a cancellation_reason, adding behavioral nuance beyond the schema. This is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 primary purpose. The two sentences are efficient, with the destructive warning placed prominently and the key requirements stated without extraneous information.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: what is cancelled, destructiveness, required reason, and optional product restriction. It lacks details about return values or post-cancellation status, but no output schema exists and annotations handle the safety profile. Adequate for a destructive mutation tool, though slightly more could be said about side effects.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including 'omit = all main products' for product_ids. The description's mention of 'specific contract product UUIDs' reinforces but does not add beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the tool cancels either an entire contract or specific products on it, using the specific verb 'cancel' and naming the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_contract_product, which likely cancel only a single product, and cancel_order, which targets orders.

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 when to use this tool: for whole-contract cancellation or partial product cancellation, with the option to limit to specific products via UUIDs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as cancel_contract_product for single-product-only scenarios, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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