atas_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the action is a cancellation, but does not mention what happens for invalid or already-filled orders, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. Some of this may be covered by an output schema, but the description itself gives minimal behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and target. It includes the necessary cross-reference to atas_orders without any redundant wording.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the purpose, the target resource, and where to find valid IDs. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. A small gap remains around edge cases and failure behavior, but overall the essential context is present.

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 schema only defines order_id as a string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by explaining that the ID refers to a working order and directing the agent to atas_orders for valid IDs, which adds real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Cancel'), a specific resource ('working order'), and the method of identification ('by its ID'). It also points to atas_orders for obtaining valid IDs, which distinguishes it from the order-listing sibling.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a working order needs to be cancelled. It also references atas_orders as the source for order IDs, providing helpful routing guidance. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with other mutation tools, but the context is sufficient for this simple operation.

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