receipts_cancel

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: only draft or issued receipts can be cancelled, cancellation preserves the historical record unlike deletion, and a reason may be supplied.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the action, then gives eligibility, behavioral distinction, and the optional parameter detail.

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 receipt mutation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing behavioral context: eligible statuses, record preservation, and optional reason. It does not discuss reversibility or mention receipts_restore, but the structured fields cover the rest.

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 input schema already documents uuid, companyId, cancellationNotes, and cancellationReason. The description only calls out the optional cancellation reason, so it adds little beyond the schema and fits the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a receipt.' It also scopes the operation to draft or issued receipts and distinguishes it from deletion by noting that the historical record is preserved, so an agent can differentiate it from 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 gives a clear eligibility condition: cancellation is possible from draft or issued status. It also contrasts cancellation with deletion, which is a useful alternative-selection cue, though it does not explicitly mention sibling operations such as receipts_refund or receipts_restore.

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