Orders Cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by exposing the actual side effects (buyer email, inventory restock) and the required OAuth scope write_orders. It does not say what happens to paid or already-fulfilled orders or whether refunds are triggered, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the action and the irreversible warning, then metadata. Five short lines, no filler; the HTTP path and API version are boilerplate but cheap and operationally useful.

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 5-parameter mutation the description covers scope, endpoint, and side effects, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no statement of what the call returns (the cancelled order, an error state, etc.).

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 100%, so every parameter (id, email, reason, restock, additional_fields) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of emailing the buyer and restocking inventory mirrors those schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Cancel an order") and immediately distinguishes it from read siblings like orders_get/orders_list by declaring its destructive nature. The HTTP verb+path and required scope leave no ambiguity about what the call does.

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 word "Irreversible" acts as a strong caution but not as routing guidance; nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over siblings such as tiendanube_orders_close or tiendanube_order_fulfillments_delete. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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