Cancel order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and prerequisites, but does not mention side effects (e.g., order status changes to cancelled), error behavior for already-cancelled orders, or whether cancellation is reversible. This is a minimal viable description but not richly transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the key conditions. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who can use it and when it applies. It does not specify the resulting state or error handling, but these are less critical for a straightforward cancel operation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter order_id is already documented as 'Order ID to cancel'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating the action. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Cancel') and resource ('an order'), and adds two important scoping conditions: it must belong to the authenticated user and must not already be cancelled. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or place_order, making the purpose 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 provides clear usage context: only cancel orders owned by the authenticated user and only when they are not already cancelled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the conditions are sufficient for most agents to decide correctly.

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