wsCancelOrder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool places/modifies real orders (though it cancels), and that response is acknowledgment-only. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling for non-existent orders, or specific behavior for partially filled orders. The warning about confirming details adds some transparency but is not exhaustive.

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: two short, clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides critical usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately addresses the acknowledgment-only nature and directs to other methods for verification. It covers the key behavioral aspect (real order impact) and usage prerequisite (confirmation). It could mention cancellation irreversibility or rate limits, but overall it is sufficient for a cancellation tool with low complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the generic warning about confirming symbol, side, quantity, and price is partly irrelevant for cancellation (side, quantity, price are not required). Thus the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 an existing unfilled or partially filled order'), the resource ('order'), and the protocol ('via WebSocket on Bybit V5 unified account'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancelOrder' (likely REST) and 'batchCancelOrders' by highlighting the WebSocket nature and specific use case.

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 provides explicit guidance: confirm symbol, side, quantity, and price before calling, and notes that the response is only an acknowledgment, advising to use subscribeOrder or REST endpoints for verification. It implies when to use (for unfilled/partially filled orders) but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for orders already filled).

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