cancel_mf_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the call is a dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true, preventing an agent from mistaking a no-op for a real cancellation. It does not cover error behavior for already-executed orders, reversibility, or how the response signals dry-run vs. real execution.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the safety gate immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 cancel with no output schema, the description covers the critical execution gate but leaves order_id provenance and post-call state (what happens on success vs. failure, how to confirm) undocumented. Adequate to attempt the call, not adequate to predict its outcome.

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 coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about order_id — no format, no provenance (e.g., obtainable from get_mf_orders), no constraint that it must reference a pending MF order. For a single-param tool where the schema is bare, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a pending mutual fund order') plus a qualifier ('pending') that bounds the operation. It is implicitly distinguishable from cancel_order and cancel_mf_sip by the 'mf'/'order' naming, but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the 'pending' qualifier, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus cancel_mf_sip or the equity cancel_order, nor any advice to check get_mf_orders first for the order_id. The dry-run sentence is a condition of execution rather than guidance on tool selection.

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