ig_cancel_working_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action, without revealing whether confirmation is required, what happens to the order, any failure modes, or the meaning of the 'confirm' and 'live_confirmation' parameters. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential behavioral and parameter context, so the single sentence does not earn its place.

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 mutating nature, the absence of annotations, and the presence of confirmation-related parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the cancellation flow, effects, or return values.

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% and the description adds no parameter information. 'deal_id' is required but its purpose is not explained; 'confirm' and 'live_confirmation' are completely opaque. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Cancel') and the resource ('OTC working order'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/list working orders. However, it doesn't mention the target identifier (deal_id) or any conditions, so it's clear but not maximally informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to cancel instead of update, or any prerequisites for cancellation. The single sentence gives no context for usage.

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