cancel_all_orders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so irreversibility is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the TAS Guard human-approval gate, which tells the agent this call will not execute autonomously. It does not spell out the approval workflow or failure behavior if approval is denied.

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 sentence with the guard condition front-loaded in brackets and the action immediately after. Every element — approval gate, scope, object — earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the exact scope of destruction and the fact that human approval is required. Only minor detail (what happens on denial, whether the action is reversible) is left to the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing or misstated.

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 ('Cancel') and a precisely scoped resource ('every open demo order'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling cancel_order_by_id (singular). The scope words 'every open demo' do the differentiation work, but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: this is the bulk variant, to be used when all open demo orders should go, as opposed to cancel_order_by_id or close_all_positions. No explicit when/when-not or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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