avanza_open_order_cancel

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does so by explaining the dry-run vs live-cancel distinction and the R/W mode requirement. It does not mention idempotency, whether the dry-run returns a preview, or what failure modes exist, but for a cancellation tool the key behavioral risks are addressed.

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 deliver all necessary information with the core action front-loaded. There is no filler, and the alias and prerequisite are placed efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting the tool but less complete for invoking it correctly in all cases. It omits how to discover order_id (e.g., via avanza_open_orders), does not distinguish paper vs live orders, and provides no return-value expectations. Still, the core conditions for live cancellation and the alias relationship are stated.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds useful meaning for confirm (live cancellation requires confirm=true) and implies dry-run when false, but it does not explain account_id, order_id, or how to obtain a valid order_id. The required parameters are left to inference, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('cancel'), the exact resource ('existing open/pending regular order'), and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of avanza_order_delete, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool. It is immediately clear what this tool acts on and how it relates to nearby alternatives.

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 gives concrete conditions for live use: 'TUI R/W mode and confirm=true'. It also makes the dry-run default evident. It does not explicitly name alternatives like avanza_paper_cancel or explain when to prefer them, but the alias note and regular-order qualifier provide enough routing context for most cases.

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