Cancel Order Item

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the cancellation is processed asynchronously and returns a process status. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, which is consistent. No contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, use cases, and behavioral note with prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral notes (async processing), and a prerequisite (review order). Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and lack of output schema, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by linking the reasonCode to the use cases (e.g., confirming cancellation vs unable to fulfill), giving semantic meaning 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 clearly states the action (cancel an order item) and the resource (order item by ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like handle_return and other actions by specifying two specific use cases (confirming customer cancellation or canceling due to inability to fulfill).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for customer cancellation requests or when unable to fulfill) and advises reviewing the order with get_order before canceling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides sufficient context for usage.

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