cancelFixedBorrowOrder

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

Annotations already mark it non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds materially: acceptance of the request is not completion of the cancellation, result is empty, business failures come back as MCP tool errors, and there is a 1-request-per-rolling-second-per-path local limit. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then identifier constraints, then the confirmation gate, then the crucial 'accepted ≠ completed' caveat, then rate limit and error behavior. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the identity of the result (empty), how to verify the true outcome via a sibling tool, failure disclosure, and throttling. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and interpret the response is missing.

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 only 50% — the confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema, but orderId has only minLength. The description compensates by explaining that orderId must be nonempty and must be a borrow order ID rather than a contract match ID, and it reinforces the confirm requirement and approval rule.

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 specific verb and resource — requesting cancellation of an eligible fixed-rate borrow order on the authenticated Unified account — and pins the key identifier semantics (orderId is a borrow order ID, not a contract match ID). This lets an agent distinguish it from queryFixedBorrowOrders or the crypto-loan cancel siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives clear preconditions (confirm=true plus explicit client approval) and directs follow-up verification to queryFixedBorrowOrders. It does not explicitly state when this tool should NOT be used in favor of the other cancel tools in the sibling list, but the authentication and eligibility scoping covers the realistic selection case.

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