cancel_order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description isn't required to restate those. It adds the 'respects dry-run' nuance, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behavior for invalid IDs, already-canceled orders, or error responses. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the additional context earns a middle score.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundancy. It earns full marks for conciseness.

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 operation with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks critical context about the dry-run behavior (what does 'respects' mean?), error handling, and whether the operation is reversible. While annotations cover some safety aspects, the agent is left without enough information to call this tool confidently, especially with many similar siblings.

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 the bare order_id parameter. It says 'by id', which clarifies the parameter's role, and 'open order' suggests the ID must refer to an open order. However, it doesn't specify the ID format, where to obtain it, or what happens if the ID is invalid. Minimal value added.

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 action (cancel) and resource (an open order by id). It distinguishes from cancel_all_orders by implying a single order, but it doesn't differentiate from the sibling kalshi_cancel_order. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cancel_all_orders or kalshi_cancel_order. The phrase 'open order' implies a condition, but there's no statement about when not to use it or which sibling to choose. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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