cancel_order

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and open-world. The description adds the key constraint that only 'pending' orders can be cancelled, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't disclose further consequences like irreversibility or broker-side effects, but the annotations cover the main risk.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, target, and required inputs, making it highly scannable.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose, the pending-order restriction, and relies on schema/annotations for parameter and safety details. The absence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature mean nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly described. The description's phrase 'by order ID and variety' simply restates the schema without adding deeper meaning or explaining the enum semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'pending order', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_gtt_rule and modify_order. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 when you need to cancel a regular pending order, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like cancel_gtt_rule or provide exclusionary guidance. There is no 'when not to use' or comparison to other order-management tools.

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