cancel_broker_order

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it reveals a preview-then-confirm workflow and that the cancellation is only submitted when confirm=true. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it, though it does not describe side effects, error cases, or authorization requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the confirmation workflow. It is efficient, though the word 'Cũng' (also) assumes some shared context and the preview behavior is not fully elaborated.

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 destructive cancellation tool, the description covers the essential flow and the confirm requirement, and annotations cover the destructive nature. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the preview returns, and it leaves broker/market/account selection ambiguous, which an agent may need to invoke the tool correctly in different contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It explains order_id and the confirm preview/send behavior, and mentions broker names, but it does not clarify the meaning or usage of broker, market, or account parameters, which are left entirely to the schema enums and names.

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 action: 'Huỷ một lệnh theo order_id' (cancel an order by order_id), with a specific verb and resource. It also names the supported brokers (DNSE, SSI, TCBS), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; the distinction is inferred from the verb 'cancel' versus siblings like place/get.

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 usage context by explaining the two-step confirmation flow: without confirm it previews, and with confirm=true it actually sends. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or state exclusions, but the confirmation guidance is directly actionable.

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