cancel_all

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default dry_run=true, but does not mention other behaviors like mutability, permissions, or irreversibility when dry_run=false.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action; the second adds the default and context. Very well structured.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the action, filtering option, default, and usage context. A minor gap is lack of clarity on the effect if dry_run=false.

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 50% (dry_run lacks description). The description adds 'Default dry_run=true,' which compensates for the missing schema description. For symbol, it adds no new 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 'Cancel every open order, optionally filtered by symbol.' It uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (open orders), and the filtering distinguishes it from cancel_order, which cancels a single order.

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 calls it 'The most common panic stop primitive after set_kill_switch,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like cancel_order.

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