Cancel Order Set

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

The destructiveHint annotation already declares that this operation is destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds that it targets a related set of orders, but it does not disclose additional side effects such as partial failures or what happens to the legs after cancellation. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the object, and a relevant example, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description, annotations, and input schema provide enough context to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about alternatives, but the core behavior and target are clear.

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 never mentions the order_ids parameter. The parameter name and type are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions by explaining what the IDs refer to or how they should be provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and a precise resource ('a set of related orders'), with a concrete example ('bracket legs') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order. It clearly communicates the tool's scope.

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 example 'such as bracket legs' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the word 'set' implies batch/related cancellations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like cancel_order or get_order_set_status, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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