Отмена продуктового заказа

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

The description discloses significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: paid orders are refunded to the debit account, the result must be evaluated from payload.status rather than the outer status, code 605 means already cancelled, and re-reading with app_id may be needed to confirm actual cancellation. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's side effects and response evaluation.

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 dense but every statement is functional. It front-loads the purpose, follows with refund and consent handling, then captures important parameter conditions and response semantics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and a small parameter set, the description covers action, outcomes, return-behavior semantics, edge cases like already-cancelled orders, and handling when status is unknown. Even though there is an IS input schema, the description does not need to explain the return shape, but it also gives the critical interpretation of the response.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both parameters. The description explains that order_id is the sole cancellation key, that paymentId/payment_id is specifically NOT required, and that app_id is optional, sourced from grocery_stores()/grocery_attempt(), and improves status accuracy. This fully compensates for the unhelpful JSON schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: cancel a grocery order, whether paid or unpaй. It additionally distinguishes itself from the sibling ticket_cancel by noting paymentId is not needed, and names the relevant order identifier, so an agent can correctly select this tool.

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 gives explicit usage direction: use this to cancel a grocery order, it requires consent from the user first, paymentId is not needed unlike ticket_cancel, and app_id is optional but beneficial. It also tells the agent what to do if the tool returns an error: check grocery_order_status or rely on the app, making whens and alternatives clear.

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