alopeyk_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive nature, disabled state return, and underlying HTTP method. Could mention reversibility or side effects, but covers essential behavioral traits.

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?

Front-loaded with warning and purpose. Args section is clear. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Covers prerequisites, parameter details, and API mapping. Missing description of return value, but output schema exists. Adequate for a cancellation tool with given 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter: order_id as numeric, comment as required reason, instance as optional with default. Adds meaning beyond schema types.

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 'Cancel an order' with a warning about real delivery. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'alonomic_cancel_parcel' by specifying it's for Alopeyk orders. Includes Persian purpose and API endpoint mapping.

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?

Explicitly warns about destructive action and states prerequisites (access_token, enable_ordering, read_only). Tells agent when the tool will fail. However, no direct comparison to siblings like 'alopeyk_finish_order' for alternative usage.

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