Cancel Trade Intent

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true aligns with the description's 'cancel' action. The description adds valuable detail by specifying that it cancels 'all active broker orders', which clarifies the scope beyond a generic destructive flag. It does not mention potential partial failures or idempotency, but the annotation already signals destructiveness, so the description sufficiently enhances transparency.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential information efficiently, perfectly matching the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While the output schema exists (though not shown), the description leaves some ambiguity about whether the trade intent itself is cancelled or only its orders are cancelled, as the tool name suggests 'cancel trade intent' but the description focuses on orders. It also does not mention preconditions (e.g., intent state) or side effects. This partial ambiguity reduces completeness, though the core action is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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?

The schema only defines intent_id without any description. However, the tool description says the orders are 'associated with a trade intent', which implicitly clarifies that intent_id identifies the trade intent whose orders will be cancelled. This compensation is adequate given the single parameter, though it doesn't explicitly define the ID format or constraints.

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 all active broker orders associated with a trade intent.' It specifies the resource (broker orders) and the scope (associated with a trade intent), making the primary purpose unambiguous. The verb 'cancel' is precise and distinct from other sibling tools that create, submit, or fetch intents.

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 when to use this tool (when all orders tied to a trade intent need cancellation) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as cancel_order (single order) or cancel_order_set (multiple orders). No direct 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, though the sibling list makes the distinction inferable.

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