Cancel all limit orders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial scope of destruction — only pending limit orders, with filled orders and open positions untouched — plus that it is a local change and that reserved cash is released. It also notes the return payload (count and cancelled orders), which is exactly the extra context expected when annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the effect/scope is front-loaded before the sibling pointer. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Return values are already covered by the output schema and the destructiveness/idempotency profile by the annotations; the description fills the one remaining gap, the blast radius of the operation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema (naming rules, default). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('cancel every pending limit order of an account') plus the side effect ('release the reserved cash'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-order sibling, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the when-to-use condition directly: use this for cancelling all pending limits, and 'Use cancel_order to cancel just one.' The alternative tool is named and the selecting condition is explicit.

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