cancel_rfq

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an owner-scoped mutation with a precondition, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to pending responses on the RFQ, or what error is returned if a deal already exists.

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 sentence with zero filler; the action and its precondition are front-loaded so the agent can decide immediately.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks post-call expectations: whether the RFQ is gone permanently, whether funds/responses are released, and what success looks like. Adequate but noticeably thin.

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%, but there is only one parameter whose name (rfq_id) and uuid format are largely self-documenting. The description adds the meaningful ownership constraint implicit in 'your own,' yet never mentions rfq_id or how to obtain a valid one.

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?

Specific verb ('Cancel') plus specific resource ('your own RFQ / private order'), with a temporal qualifier that narrows scope. It separates itself from create_rfq/respond_to_rfq by verb alone, but never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with adjacent tools like get_rfq or deal_status.

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 parenthetical '(before a deal is agreed)' gives an explicit precondition for use, and 'your own' implicitly excludes cancelling other parties' RFQs. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g. negotiate) for RFQs already past that stage.

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