cancel_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an authorization prerequisite (owning trader). It does not state whether the cancel is permanent, what happens to an already-fired trigger, or what a failed cancellation returns.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded before the permission caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action and one precondition, but leaves trader_id undocumented and the post-cancellation state unspecified.

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 compensate, but it only names one of the two required parameters (trigger_id) and adds no format or sourcing detail for either it or trader_id.

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 pair (disarm/cancel) and resource (trigger), keyed on trigger_id, so the agent can distinguish it from set_trigger, list_triggers, and check_triggers. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the verb rather than explicit.

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 supplies one real usage constraint – only the owning trader may cancel – which implies the required authorization context. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives such as pause_trading or how to recover from an invalid trigger_id.

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