mhlb_delete_order

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, openWorldHint:true), the description discloses that refund behavior is not controlled here, and crucially warns that the write is UNVERIFIED, derived from compiled API client, and advises inspecting the dry-run preview. This is exactly the kind of behavioral caution an agent needs for a destructive operation, surpassing what annotations provide.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the refund caveat and the verification warning. Every clause earns its place; it is concise without sacrificing critical information.

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 the complexity (write op, 6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core action, the refund limitation, and the verification warning. It does not explain return values, but with no output schema that is acceptable. It could explicitly state that this is for canceling an existing order (not a subscription) but the schema's isSubscribed parameter and dry-run advice partly compensate. Otherwise, it is quite 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema already documents what each expects. The description adds a note about the dry-run preview tied to 'confirm', which is contextual but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Cancel a lunch order.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like mhlb_unsubscribe_order (which targets subscriptions) and mhlb_update_order (modification). No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention mhlb_unsubscribe_order for recurring orders or differentiate from mhlb_update_order. The only hint is buried in the schema's isSubscribed param, but the description itself omits any 'when-to-use' direction.

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