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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomicity, state gating, idempotent replay behavior, and a required Idempotency-Key header. These are meaningful operational traits that an agent would not infer from the annotations alone.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical state constraint, escalation path, idempotency note, and header requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 destructive, state-dependent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation constraints, escalation alternative, idempotency behavior, and header requirement. It stops short of describing response or error shapes, which is a minor gap given the operational focus.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that agent_session_id scopes the order to the same session, but it does not explain order_id format, source, or validation, leaving a clear gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an order placed via the same agent_session_id.' It also distinguishes the action from the sibling tool waiter_call by noting when escalation is required.

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?

It explicitly states when cancellation is allowed ('pending' or 'confirmed') and when it is not allowed ('Once the kitchen starts preparing'), and it names the alternative action: 'you must escalate to waiter_call.'

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