cancelOrder

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: dryRun defaults to true, actual execution requires TOSSINVEST_ENABLE_TRADING and confirmation, and it affects real assets. Rate limits group is also mentioned.

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 line breaks, headers, and a warning. It is front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy (first line repeats title) but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, constraint on executed orders, dryRun behavior, and required environment variables. Lacks details on response/error handling but sufficient for safe usage.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description itself reinforces the dryRun default and confirmation requirement, adding value beyond the schema. No parameter information is missing.

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 cancels an existing order, with the specific verb '취소합니다' (cancels) and resource '기존 주문' (existing order). It distinguishes from siblings like cancelConditionalOrder by specifying it cancels general orders, not conditional ones.

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 indicates the tool is for canceling existing orders and notes that executed orders cannot be canceled, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like modifyOrder or cancelConditionalOrder. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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