kite-mcp

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable scope constraint ('pending') but omits critical behavioral details: whether cancellation is immediate, reversible, or what occurs if the order is already executed. Acceptable but minimal augmentation.

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?

Single sentence is efficiently worded without redundancy, but critically underweight for a destructive financial operation with undocumented parameters. Front-loading is adequate, yet the brevity constitutes underspecification rather than precision.

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?

While output schema exists (reducing description burden for return values), the tool lacks explanation for its undocumented 'variety' parameter and omits failure modes (e.g., 'failed if order already filled'). For a destructive operation with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient.

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 0% (neither order_id nor variety have descriptions). The description fails to compensate: it doesn't explain the non-obvious 'variety' parameter (default 'regular' implies variants exist) or validate the 'order_id' format. Only the mention of 'order' loosely implies the first parameter.

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 specific verb (Cancel) and resource (order) with scope constraint ('pending'), which clarifies eligibility. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'modify_order'—both likely operate on pending orders, leaving ambiguity about which to choose.

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?

Contains implicit usage hint via 'pending' (suggesting state requirement), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or references to alternative tools like 'modify_order'. No guidance on the 'variety' parameter's purpose.

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