avanza_order_delete

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and clearly discloses the key destructive-operation gate: live deletion only happens with TUI R/W mode and confirm=true. It does not describe dry-run output or reversibility, but the essential safety behavior is communicated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and the critical execution condition with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential mode and confirmation behavior. It remains incomplete on what a dry-run returns, how ambiguous order targets are handled, and how this tool relates to sibling order/cancel tools.

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%, and account_id, order_id, and confirm have no schema documentation. The description adds meaning only to confirm in the live-deletion context, leaving the other core parameters to be inferred from names.

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 action ('delete') and a specific resource ('regular open order') and introduces the dry-run mode. It does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as avanza_open_order_cancel or avanza_stoploss_delete, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 actionable usage conditions: live deletion requires TUI R/W mode and confirm=true, which also implies dry-run is the safe fallback. It does not name alternative tools or edge cases beyond the 'regular open order' scope.

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