pro_cancel_order

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

Beyond what annotations already state (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals the two-step preview-then-confirm behavior, the open/pending eligibility rule, and the meaning of the order status ENUM. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that annotations alone would not convey.

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 core action is front-loaded and each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: eligibility, return value, prerequisite tool, status semantics, and the confirm flow. The status ENUM block is slightly verbose but earns its place by defining the vocabulary used in the eligibility rule.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so 'Returns cancellation status' is the only return-value information an agent receives, leaving the shape of that status unspecified. Otherwise the definition is complete: the destructive nature, the two-step safety flow, prerequisites, and order-eligibility rules are all documented.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the status ENUM explanation, which tells the agent which order_id values are actually cancellable. It also reinforces the confirm=true workflow from the schema, providing practical execution context beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 opening sentence 'Cancel a specific PRO order by ID' states a specific verb and resource, and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling pro_cancel_all_orders. The additional constraint 'Only open/pending orders can be cancelled' further sharpens what the operation does.

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?

It explicitly names the prerequisite sibling: 'Use pro_get_open_orders first to see which orders can be cancelled.' The [PRIVATE] instruction gives a precise condition for when the second call with confirm=true is appropriate, so an agent knows both the correct sequencing and the user-consent gate.

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