cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cancel') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions or authentication are required, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if order doesn't exist), or what happens upon success (e.g., order status change). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('cancel a specific order') and includes essential context ('by ID on a supported exchange'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters ('exchange', 'symbol', 'orderId') well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 resource ('a specific order by ID on a supported exchange'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_all_orders' by specifying 'specific order by ID', though it doesn't explicitly mention all alternatives like 'list_orders' for checking order status. The description avoids tautology by not just repeating the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing order ID from 'list_orders' or 'create_order'), when not to use it (e.g., for non-cancelable orders), or how it differs from 'cancel_all_orders'. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context for selection among sibling tools.

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