cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: an authorization-like ownership restriction (same client name) and a cascading effect on resting children. It does not say whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens to partially filled intent, what error occurs if the intent belongs to another client, or whether the call is idempotent — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 tight sentence with the ownership constraint front-loaded and no filler. Slightly undermined by unexplained internal jargon ('resting children') that costs an agent a beat to interpret.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an unannotated destructive mutation the description is thin: no irreversibility, failure modes, or idempotency, and it leaves the sole required parameter undefined.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'an intent' generically but never explains what intent_id is, its format, or where the agent obtains it, leaving the only required argument undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: cancel an intent and its resting children, with the scope qualifier that only intents created by this agent (same client name) qualify. That ownership qualifier helps separate it from kill_switch, though the description never names the sibling or clarifies the jargon 'resting children'.

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?

Usage is implied by the ownership constraint (this is for your own intents, not everything), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as kill_switch for a global stop or order_status for checking what remains.

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