Cancel jury duty search

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing key behaviors: same-day refund behavior, that a matched seat is untouched, the 404 failure condition, and the exact return shape. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and outcomes without needing to call the tool.

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 dense but well-organized, with the primary action stated first, followed by refund behavior, an important exclusion, error handling, and return format. Every sentence adds meaningful information and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it cancels, side effects, error cases, return value, and related tool usage. The lack of an output schema is compensated by explicitly documenting the returned object structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly implies the action operates on the current waiting search state rather than requiring explicit arguments. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 identifies the operation: withdrawing a currently waiting matchmaking search initiated by tribeunal_start_jury_duty. It distinguishes this from leaving a matched seat, explicitly naming tribeunal_leave_jury as the alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from its siblings.

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 explains exactly when to use the tool: when a matchmaking search is currently waiting. It also provides explicit guidance on when not to use it, directing users to tribeunal_leave_jury for giving up a matched seat, and suggests checking tribeunal_get_jury_duty_status first. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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