order_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a destructive mutation ('cancel'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient phrase in Russian that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is minimally complete but inadequate. It states what the tool does but lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral disclosures. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'order_id' parameter at all, leaving its meaning and format undocumented. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to explain what 'order_id' represents or how to obtain it.

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 'Отмена биржевой заявки' (Cancellation of exchange order) clearly states the verb ('cancel') and resource ('exchange order'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like order_place (create) and order_get (read), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what type of order is being canceled.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing order), exclusions, or contextual cues. Given siblings like order_get_list and order_get, there's no indication of when cancellation is appropriate versus querying orders.

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