cancel_order

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does creditably disclose that the operation is destructive and gated behind confirm=true, which is exactly the safety context an agent needs, but it omits permissions, whether the cancel is reversible, and the effect on payment/refund — meaningful gaps for a destructive action.

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 clauses, zero filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing here could be cut without losing signal.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the action, its destructive nature, and the confirmation gate — the core requirements. Only preconditions such as which order states permit cancellation are missing, a minor gap at this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the non-obvious parameter by stating confirm=true is required for this destructive call (the schema only lists it as a boolean defaulting to false), and order_id is self-evident from the verb. Two parameters at low coverage with the risky one explained supports a 4.

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 specific verb+resource ('Cancel an order'), making the effect immediately clear and separable from sibling order tools such as order_detail, my_orders, or place_order. It stops short of naming those siblings or the order states where cancellation applies, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition (confirm=true), which is genuinely actionable usage guidance. However, it says nothing about when cancellation is allowed versus other order actions, nor what to do when cancellation is not possible, leaving alternatives and exclusions to inference.

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