Huỷ phiên thanh toán

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the key state restriction, which is valuable. But it omits what happens on invalid states (error vs no-op), whether cancellation is reversible, any idempotency effects, or side effects. This is minimal but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, one in Vietnamese and one in English, with no filler. The action and state restriction are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 cancellation tool, the essential action is stated, but without an output schema the description does not clarify return values or failure behavior. It also does not explain how idempotency_key affects cancellation or recommend verifying checkout status beforehand. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the schema already documents checkout_id and idempotency_key, including the auto-UUID behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies the action: cancel a pending checkout, and explicitly restricts the operation to pending state only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monapay_cancel_qr and other checkout operations without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when the tool is valid (pending checkout) and explicitly lists ineligible states (paid, expired, cancelled). However, it does not name an alternative tool for non-pending checkouts or suggest checking status first, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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