cancel_activation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: money returns in full, and it acknowledges API timing constraints with retry advice. It doesn't mention side effects like irreversibility or response format, but for a cancellation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: the action, the money result, and the retry hint. No redundant information, and the primary action is 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?

For a simple one-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, timing, and error handling. It doesn't explain the response format or further error cases, but the provided guidance is sufficient for typical use. Slight gap on what happens after cancellation, but it states money returns, which is a key context.

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 schema has one parameter, activationId, with no description. The tool description implies activationId identifies the activation to cancel via 'Cancel an activation' and 'after ordering,' but it doesn't explicitly connect the parameter name to the concept. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, and it partially does through context but lacks explicit parameter meaning.

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 action: 'Cancel an activation' when no code arrived. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the cancellation action and the condition, making it clear this is not wait_for_code or finish_activation.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use: 'when no code arrived' and 'Can be called right after ordering.' It also gives retry guidance for the 'too early' scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools as alternatives.

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