Accept or reject a buyer cancellation request for the authenticated supplier's unshipped merchant order. Acceptance is the state-changing merchant decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| decision | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes | ||
| merchant_reference | No | ||
| cancellation_request_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false). The description adds that acceptance is the state-changing decision and restricts to unshipped orders, which is useful. However, it does not disclose consequences such as what happens to the order after acceptance/rejection, or any additional side effects beyond the annotation hints.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without redundancy, effectively stating the scope and the key behavioral nuance (acceptance is state-changing).
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits parameter details for note and merchant_reference, and it does not specify post-decision effects (e.g., order cancellation flow). Given the tool's complexity (5 params) and openWorldHint=true, the description is incomplete.
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 description must explain all parameters. It implicitly covers order_id, cancellation_request_id, and decision via the phrase 'buyer cancellation request' and 'Accept or reject,' but it does not address note or merchant_reference at all. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to fully compensate.
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 tool's function: accepting or rejecting a buyer cancellation request for a supplier's unshipped merchant order. It uses a specific verb ('Accept or reject') and a specific resource ('buyer cancellation request for the authenticated supplier's unshipped merchant order'), which distinguishes it from siblings like request_order_cancellation and update_supplier_order.
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: it is for a supplier responding to a buyer cancellation request on an unshipped merchant order. This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is specific enough to differentiate from related tools, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.