Cancel a synthetic local paper order by order ID in the Flyrel sandbox. Use it to test order lifecycle workflows; orders held at an external broker cannot be cancelled.
Cancel one synthetic local order. Cannot cancel orders at an external broker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| broker_id | No | paper |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful constraint (synthetic/local-only scope) beyond the field list, but says nothing about irreversibility, what state the order ends in, idempotency, or failure behavior when an order is uncancellable. Partial coverage for a irreversible mutation.
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 sentences, scope stated first and constraint second — no filler. Slight redundancy: the external-broker exclusion largely repeats what broker_id's const 'paper' already encodes.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the tool is simple (2 params, flat). Still, for an irreversible cancellation the description leaves open what happens on failure or on an already-filled order, which an agent needs before committing.
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 0%, so the description is expected to compensate and does not: neither order_id nor the broker_id const is explained. The broker_id parameter is self-documenting via its const/default, but order_id's format and expected source (from list_orders or get_order_status) go unstated.
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?
A specific verb (cancel) plus a precisely scoped resource (one synthetic local order). The second sentence rules out a nearby interpretation (external broker orders), so the agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations like confirm_order or the blanket kill_switch.
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 supplies one useful exclusion — external broker orders cannot be cancelled here — which implies a boundary on when to use it. However it never names an alternative path for that excluded case (e.g. kill_switch or a broker-side flow), leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.