Ask the merchant to cancel an unshipped order. This creates a request and notification; it never reports the order as cancelled until the supplier or an operator accepts it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it creates a request and notification, and it never reports the order as cancelled until acceptance. This adds context about side effects and state changes that the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) do not fully capture.
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 only two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second clarifies the non-destructive nature, making every word meaningful.
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 tool with only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the primary action and the key nuance that cancellation is not immediate. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., order ownership) but is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about order_id or reason. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already contains, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 asks the merchant to cancel an unshipped order, using the specific verb 'ask' and identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like decide_supplier_order_cancellation by explicitly framing it as a request that does not finalize cancellation.
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 for when to use the tool: for unshipped orders, and it clarifies that it only creates a request. It does not explicitly name alternatives or add exclusions, but the 'never reports as cancelled' clause effectively differentiates it from the supplier-side decide tool.
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.