wb_order_cancel

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is irreversible, which is critical for a destructive mutation tool. It does not detail side effects or permission requirements, but the irreversibility warning provides meaningful transparency beyond the bare schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key caveat efficiently. The parenthetical Russian translation is somewhat redundant for an English-language tool definition, which prevents a perfect score.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core purpose and irreversibility. However, it lacks explicit guidance on what order_id must refer to, when cancellation is allowed, and how to distinguish this from sibling order-action tools. These are clear gaps, though the tool is simple enough that the definition remains usable.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain that order_id identifies the FBS assembly task to cancel. However, the parameter is named order_id and the description names the target resource, so the intended meaning is inferable. The description adds some domain context but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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') and a specific resource ('FBS assembly task'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling order-related tools like wb_dbs_order_action or wb_orders_status. The Russian parenthetical 'отменить заказ' reinforces that this is an order-cancellation operation.

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 this tool is for canceling FBS assembly tasks specifically, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as DBS/CC order actions or order-archive tools. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of required order states, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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