stock_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and that a confirmation is returned, but does not disclose that cancellation is destructive/irreversible, whether the order must be in a specific state, or any authorization requirements. The large parameter list implies validation logic that is not explained.

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 a straightforward list of parameters and a return value, structured for readability. It is longer than typical, but the number of parameters justifies it. The purpose is front-loaded, and each line is concise.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 15 parameters and many optional fields. It does not explain why all parameters are needed, what the defaults mean, or under what conditions cancellation might fail. The flat parameter list lacks workflow context, which is a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a labeled list of all 15 parameters, adding some meaning like 'current_quantity: Current remaining quantity' and 'trade_date: Trading date (defaults to today).' However, many entries simply restate the parameter name (e.g., 'stock_id: Stock symbol') and it does not explain how the parameters relate to the cancellation process.

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 'Cancel an existing stock order,' which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_new_order, stock_modify_order, and stock_query_order.

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 implies the tool is for canceling stock orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of futopt_cancel_order' or note that cancellation is irreversible.

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