pro_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only open/pending orders are cancellable, returns cancellation status, and provides the order status ENUM. It lacks details on authentication (jwt usage) or side effects, but overall is transparent for a cancellation tool.

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 concise, with four front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value: action+constraint, return info, usage hint, and status definitions. No 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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the action, constraint, usage hint, and status values. It lacks mention of error scenarios or detailed output format, but 'returns cancellation status' suffices. Overall sufficient for decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for order_id and jwt; it merely restates the order ID context. The schema descriptions are already adequate.

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 'Cancel', resource 'a specific PRO order', and specifies the condition 'Only open/pending orders can be cancelled'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool pro_cancel_all_orders and provides a clear scope.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use pro_get_open_orders first to see which orders can be cancelled', offering a clear precondition and alternative for determining cancellable orders. It also implies when not to use via the status constraint.

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