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. It discloses that the tool communicates via HTTP to a local ControlServer and that dry_run defaults to true. However, it does not specify destructive behavior (order cancellation is irreversible), authentication requirements, potential errors, or rate limits. Additional behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey all essential information. It front-loads the primary action and immediately adds key behavioral notes. No superfluous content.

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?

Despite no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, default behavior, and internal mechanism. It lacks information on error handling and return values, but for a simple cancellation operation, the provided details are largely sufficient for agent invocation.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, leaving the description to explain both parameters. It clarifies that order_id identifies the order and that dry_run defaults to true, adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify constraints like order_id format, but given the low schema coverage, the description compensates effectively.

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', the resource 'one open order', and the method 'by id'. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool 'cancel_all' which cancels all orders, providing strong differentiation.

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 provides specific use cases: 'operator-driven cleanup or panic stop'. It also mentions the default dry_run behavior. While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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