Prepare order cancellation

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, but the description states 'Nothing reaches the market from this call: it only validates the request and returns a preview plus a confirmation token.' This is a clear annotation contradiction, so the score is 1 regardless of additional behavioral details like token expiry.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It covers the preview nature, token handling, expiry, and alternatives in a compact set of sentences without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-step cancellation flow) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the token's single-use nature, 60-second expiry, the need for explicit user approval, and the next step (toss_submit_prepared_order). It also covers the key prerequisite of finding the order with a specific status.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying the orderId must have status 'OPEN' and come from toss_get_orders, which is not explicitly in the schema's parameter description. This helps the agent select and validate the correct parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Previews the withdrawal of an EXISTING open regular order so that none of its remaining quantity can fill.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to toss_prepare_conditional_order_cancel for conditional orders and toss_submit_prepared_order for the actual submission.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Find the orderId with toss_get_orders (status OPEN)' and 'Use toss_prepare_conditional_order_cancel for conditional orders.' It also outlines the complete workflow, including obtaining explicit approval and passing the token to toss_submit_prepared_order, giving clear alternatives and prerequisites.

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