Cancel futures grid order

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and NOT idempotent. The description adds 'Weight: 1' (rate-limit cost) and 'Close and cancel' but doesn't explain side effects, authorization needs, or what gets destroyed. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Very concise with a front-loaded action. The title is duplicated in the body, which is slightly redundant but not harmful. 'Weight: 1' is a useful operational detail.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety flags, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain state requirements, what 'close' entails, or what happens on success/failure. The rich schema helps, but the behavioral gap is significant.

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 rich parameter descriptions (especially the detailed immediate flag semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline is 3, but the schema's unusually clear parameter docs and the 0 required parameters raise this to 4.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (futures grid order), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_spot_grid_order and cancel_smart_copy_order. The repetition of the title in the body adds no value, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like reduce_futures_grid or pause_futures_grid, or when a close is appropriate. No prerequisites or state requirements are mentioned.

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