Отменить заказ

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals that cancellation is irreversible, runs as a background task returning a job id rather than the updated order, and may fail with userErrors for fulfilled orders. It also discloses that cancellation cannot be undone and has no partial-return capability. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the most critical fact (irreversible), and every sentence carries essential operational or behavioral information. There is no filler or repetition of obvious schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the asynchronous job response and directs the agent to verify via get_order. It covers required decisions, customer notification, failure modes, and unsupported scenarios. For a destructive tool with six parameters, this is a complete and actionable description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by highlighting that refund and restock are mandatory decisions with no defaults, and that notifyCustomer controls the customer email. This goes beyond simply restating the 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?

Description opens with 'НЕОБРАТИМО отменяет заказ' — a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the action. It further distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like get_order by focusing on the irreversible mutation, and from any partial-refund tool by explicitly stating partial returns are not supported.

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 gives clear usage context: both refund and restock decisions are mandatory, cancellation is asynchronous, and the result must be verified via get_order. It also states exclusions — fulfilled orders cannot be cancelled and partial returns are not possible — though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those cases.

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