postCryptoLoanFixedSupplyOrderCancel

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds useful context on top: the 'pending' scope and a concrete rate limit ('1 request per UID'). It does not describe fund-release behavior or failure conditions, but the destructive annotation covers the core risk warning.

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?

Two short, front-loaded lines with no filler. The main action is stated immediately, and the rate-limit note earns its place as operationally useful information. This is an appropriately concise structure.

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 core action, confirm requirement, destructive risk, and rate limit are all covered. However, the unexplained refundedAccount parameter, lack of any output/error behavior, and absence of order-lifecycle guidance leave meaningful gaps. It is minimally sufficient for a straightforward cancel call but not fully complete.

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 only 33%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. orderId can be inferred from the tool purpose, but refundedAccount ('0'/'1') is entirely unexplained, and orderId format/source is absent. The confirm parameter is well documented in the schema, but that is schema content, not description content.

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 action and resource: 'Cancel a pending supply (lending) order.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling postCryptoLoanFixedBorrowOrderCancel. It doesn't explicitly mention 'fixed-rate' or contrast with other cancel tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Use is implied: cancel a pending supply order. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like postCryptoLoanFixedBorrowOrderCancel, and no note about whether already-matched or completed orders are ineligible. This is adequate implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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