cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirmation requirement, an implied one-shot semantics ('once only'), and an important caveat that refund status is not determinable — but never states irreversibility, required auth, or what happens to the order afterwards.

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 sentences with no filler. Slight terseness ('once only', 'the exact order') leaves meaning to inference but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, annotation-free, output-schema-free mutation, the description covers the safety gate and refund uncertainty but omits irreversibility, auth requirements, and how to obtain a valid order_id — meaningful gaps for a high-stakes tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. 'Explicit user confirmation' loosely maps to the explicit_confirmation boolean, but order_id is given no format, source, or validity guidance, leaving half the contract undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cancel the ... order') and adds scope with 'the exact order'. It is unambiguous against siblings such as order_preview and active_orders, which are read-only, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative path.

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?

Gives a gating precondition ('only after explicit user confirmation') that implies when it is safe to call, but offers no guidance on when to prefer alternatives like order_preview or active_orders first, nor any exclusions.

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