receipts_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 preserves the historical record (unlike deletion), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not state whether cancellation is reversible (e.g., via receipts_restore), whether the receipt becomes un-editable, or what downstream impacts occur. Given zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would be warranted.

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, concise and efficient. It front-loads the core action and adds the key differentiator (historical preservation). No fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 cancellation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior and status constraints but leaves gaps: reversibility, effect on linked records (payments, invoices), and whether any authorization is needed. It also doesn't clarify the notes-vs-reason distinction. Adequate but not rich enough for a state-changing financial operation.

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 all 4 params are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the optional cancellation reason, which maps to cancellationReason/cancellationNotes, and it notes the required uuid implicitly. It doesn't clarify the semantic difference between cancellationNotes and cancellationReason, which are ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource ('Cancel a receipt') and specifies the valid source statuses ('draft or issued'). It distinguishes cancellation from deletion by noting it preserves the historical record, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like receipts_delete.

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 it ('cancel from draft or issued status') and implicitly contrasts with deletion, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. It does not mention that refunds would be handled by receipts_refund, which is a relevant sibling distinction.

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