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 adds a crucial caveat that cancelling a working order does not close a filled position, which is non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., idempotency, errors), but the disclosed behavior is significant.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a critical caveat, and a simple Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral caveat, and parameter meaning. The caveat about filled positions is an important contextual edge case. The output schema handles return values, so no further description is necessary.

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 only defines 'broker_order_id' as a string. The description adds essential semantics by stating it is 'Order id returned by `place_order`,' clarifying the parameter's origin and role, which fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a working order.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'close_broker_position' by explicitly noting that this tool does not close filled positions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the order is still 'working.' It explicitly states when not to use it ('if the entry already filled') and implies an alternative (closing the position explicitly), though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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