orbs_cancel_order

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds valuable context beyond this: 'confirmation-gated' explains the confirmation requirement, and 'calling RePermit.cancel' clarifies the onchain mechanism. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence plus a short phrase 'Write, confirmation-gated.' Every piece of information is essential and front-loaded, with no waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action, mechanism, and confirmation gate. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the context is otherwise clear given the simple parameter set and sibling tools like orbs_swap_status.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (digest and chainId). The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Cancel a Spot order onchain by calling RePermit.cancel with the order digest.' This uses a specific verb (Cancel) with a resource (Spot order) and mechanism (RePermit.cancel with digest), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like orbs_place_order or orbs_swap.

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 implies when to use it (to cancel a spot order) and adds context with 'Write, confirmation-gated,' indicating it's a write operation requiring confirmation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling list shows no other cancel tool, so clear context is provided.

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