cancel_replace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the technical protocol ('via FIX 35=F or 35=G'), which adds some context about implementation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive mutation (implied by 'cancel' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies financial orders, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Cancel or replace an existing order') and adds technical specificity ('via FIX 35=F or 35=G') only where necessary. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (financial order modification), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context: error handling, side effects, response format, and differentiation from sibling tools. The technical FIX reference is useful but insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 for all 6 parameters. It only vaguely references parameters via 'cancel or replace' (mapping to 'action') and 'existing order' (mapping to 'order_id'), but provides no semantic context for 'new_venue', 'new_quantity', 'new_price', or 'new_symbol'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 the verb ('Cancel or replace') and resource ('an existing order'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_order' or 'query_orders' by focusing on modification rather than creation or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'release_stuck_orders' or 'modify_algo', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing order ID), exclusions (e.g., not for algo orders), or when to choose 'cancel' vs 'replace'. Given siblings like 'cancel_algo' and 'modify_algo', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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