Cancel Claim

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that only pending waiver claims are affected and that the claim is identified via get_pending. This clarifies what is being acted on beyond the annotation flags, although it does not discuss reversibility or post-cancel effects.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence contains the action, target, and parameter source with no filler. Every element contributes to the agent's understanding of what to call and how.

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?

With defaults documented in the schema, an output schema available, and destructive behavior covered by annotations, the description plus schema provides everything needed to call the tool correctly. The get_pending workflow dependency is explicitly named, so the required context is not missing.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented required transaction_id by saying it comes from get_pending. Other parameters such as sport, season, dry_run, and league_id are already documented in the schema; team_id remains minimally described but is a defaulted integer with low ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a pending waiver claim'), and identifies the key identifier ('transaction id (from get_pending)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like waiver_claim or add_free_agent, which perform different actions, without merely restating the tool name.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a pending claim retrieved via get_pending, which provides clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or list exclusions, but the workflow dependency is unambiguous.

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