Fortryd bestilling

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which is already a weak signal for a cancellation tool. The description does not disclose irreversibility, whether stock is affected, or required authorization beyond 'the warehouse manager can always'. It adds some behavioral context (timing, stock consequence) but is too terse for a mutation tool carrying most of the burden.

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?

Very short, but it reads as a fragment rather than a structured definition. It is front-loaded with a condition, not the action, and omits the essential verb.

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 mutation tool with a required but unexplained parameter, no output schema, and only partial behavioral disclosure, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens on success or what 'ready' means operationally.

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 0%, so the single required parameter bestillingId has no documented meaning anywhere. The description never explains what bestillingId refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter semantically opaque.

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 title 'Fortryd bestilling' (cancel order) restates the tool name 'lager_bestilling_fortryd', and the description only adds a temporal condition ('Indtil varen er klar' – until the item is ready). It never states what the tool actually does in a full sentence. An agent must infer 'cancel' from the name/title alone.

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 gives a genuinely useful timing constraint: cancellation is possible until the item is ready, and the warehouse manager can always cancel (a ready item goes to stock). This implies when cancellation is permitted, though it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when-not.

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