Prepare conditional order cancellation

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that 'Nothing reaches the market from this call' and that it 'only validates the request and returns a preview plus a confirmation token.' It also discloses the token's single-use and 60-second expiry, providing essential safety and workflow context without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with each sentence contributing useful information, but it contains slight redundancy ('Nothing reaches the market' and 'only validates the request' overlap). It is still concise enough for a workflow-critical tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 complexity of a prepare-and-submit workflow, the description fully covers the tool's role: it explains what happens (preview only), what doesn't happen (no market impact), how to get the required ID, and the token's expiration and single-use nature. This is complete despite lacking an output schema.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter conditionalOrderId with a clear description. The description reinforces the source (toss_get_conditional_orders) but does not add meaningful new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action: 'Previews the removal of an EXISTING conditional order' with the specific verb 'Previews' and resource 'conditional order'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool toss_prepare_order_cancel, which is for already-triggered legs, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it warns that affected live orders should use toss_prepare_order_cancel instead, instructs to find the ID via toss_get_conditional_orders, and directs the user to submit the token via toss_submit_prepared_order after approval. This clearly explains when and how to use the tool.

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