Cancel an Ozow payment request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence that annotations cannot express: the payer's link becomes unusable and the action is irreversible. It does not describe the failure mode for an already-completed payment, which is the main remaining behavioral question.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the irreversibility warning. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition and consequence well. Minor gap: no mention of the error/behavior when cancelling an already-completed payment, and no note on whether the paymentId comes from ozow_create_payment or ozow_get_transactions.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The payment id to cancel'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the payment id's format or where it comes from, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline.

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 and resource ('Cancel a payment request') plus a scope condition ('that has not been completed'). No sibling tool overlaps with cancellation, so an agent can place it immediately relative to ozow_create_payment and ozow_get_transactions.

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 precondition 'has not been completed' tells the agent when this tool is applicable, which is the key usage signal for a cancel operation. It stops short of saying what happens if the precondition is violated or whether any verification step (e.g. ozow_get_transactions) should precede cancellation.

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