cancel_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool cancels a submitted document, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions are required, side effects (e.g., workflow changes), or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation 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 appropriately sized with a clear main sentence followed by parameter details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly. No wasted sentences, but minor improvements in flow are possible.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses behavioral details and usage context. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden, but the description should still address prerequisites and effects.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming and briefly describing the two parameters ('doctype: ERPNext DocType name', 'name: Document name/ID'), which clarifies their roles. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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') and target ('a submitted document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_document' (permanent removal) and 'submit_document' (opposite action), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be submitted), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel already cancelled documents), or compare to siblings like 'delete_document' or 'update_document'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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