delivery_notes_cancel

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 discloses that cancellation works from draft or issued status, that it preserves the historical record unlike deletion, and that the reason is optional. This is meaningful behavioral context for a state-changing operation. It doesn't describe the resulting status or effects on related documents, but the coverage is reasonable for the tool's scope.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, status eligibility, contrasting behavior with delete, and optional reason. No fluff, no repetition of parameter details already in the schema. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool operates on a single required parameter (uuid) with three optional ones, all documented at 100% schema coverage, and no output schema needed, the description provides good context by stating valid states, the historical preservation aspect, and optional reason. It covers the key decision factors an agent needs. Could mention the resulting delivery note status, but this is a minor gap given the modest complexity.

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 schema documents all 4 parameters (uuid, companyId, cancellationNotes, cancellationReason) with their own descriptions. The tool description adds context about cancellationReason being optional, which complements rather than duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately and the description confirms optionality.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a delivery note') with concrete intent ('when delivery will not occur') and even establishes valid statuses (draft or issued). It distinguishes from siblings like delivery_notes_delete by explicitly contrasting cancellation with deletion, making it distinct from related tools.

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 explains when to use it ('when delivery will not occur') and distinguishes from deletion ('Preserves historical record unlike deletion'), implicitly pointing to when cancellation is preferred over delete. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (delivery_notes_delete vs delivery_notes_storno) or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of another, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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