mb_cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that cancellation requires confirmation and explains the preview-then-execute flow, which is essential for a destructive action. It does not mention error cases or permission requirements, but the core destructive behavior is transparently communicated.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage pattern immediately following. There is zero wasted wording, and every sentence adds critical 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 simple cancel-order tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational flow: preview and execute. It appropriately scopes to a single open order and specifies the confirmation requirement. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the clear usage instructions.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the confirm parameter and the preview/execute workflow, which is not evident from the parameter description alone.

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 the tool's function clearly with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a specific open order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mb_cancel_all_orders by emphasizing a single order. The mention of confirmation adds a key characteristic.

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 explicit usage context by instructing a two-step process: call with confirm=false first to preview, then confirm=true to execute. This is clear guidance on how to use the tool safely, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cancel_all_orders or mention when not to use it.

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