cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most important behavior: execution is a dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true. That is real value an agent cannot get from the schema. Gaps remain — irreversibility of a real cancellation and error behavior on non-pending or partially filled orders are not mentioned.

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 waste, and the dry-run gating — the thing an agent most needs to know before calling — is stated up front rather than buried.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical execution-gating behavior. It leaves open what a dry-run returns and what happens on failure, but the essentials for safe invocation are present.

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 67%, with order_id undocumented and variety described only as "Order variety" despite a five-value enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying order_id must reference a pending order; parent_order_id's CO-leg requirement lives entirely in the schema.

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?

"Cancel a pending order" gives a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier (pending) that rules out cancelling executed orders. It does not differentiate from the close siblings cancel_mf_order or modify_order, so the agent must infer that this is for equity/derivative orders rather than mutual fund orders.

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 word "pending" implicitly states a precondition for use, and the dry-run note gives context about what invoking it actually does. It never names alternatives (modify_order to change rather than cancel, cancel_mf_order for fund orders) or states what to do if the order is not pending, so routing guidance is only implied.

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