kalshi_batch_cancel_orders_v2

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so destructive behavior is known. The description adds the HTTP DELETE method, the specific endpoint path, and a rate-limit constraint on batch size, which are useful. However, it does not disclose partial success behavior or error handling, so it only marginally adds to the annotation coverage.

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 three-sentence description is efficient and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then adds a rate-limit caveat, and finally states the HTTP endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, HTTP method, and a key constraint, but because there is no output schema, it fails to describe the response shape (the phrase 'V2 response shape' is vague) or behavior on partial cancellation. Given the nested array complexity, a more complete description would benefit from mentioning response semantics.

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 single top-level parameter 'orders' has 100% schema description coverage, including detailed explanations for nested fields (order_id, subaccount, market_ticker, exchange_index). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 cancels a batch of event-market orders using the V2 response shape, and it gives the exact HTTP DELETE endpoint. This distinguishes it from the single-order cancel tool (kalshi_cancel_order_v2) and the batch create tool (kalshi_batch_create_orders_v2) via the verb 'cancelling' and the word 'batch'.

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 implies usage for batch cancellations and mentions the batch size constraint tied to rate limits, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over kalshi_cancel_order_v2 or when not to use it. The rate-limit link gives context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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