megalaunch_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool cancels orders and has a constraint (unpaid orders only), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible), error conditions, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 waste. It front-loads the key action and constraint, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by contributing essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and usage constraint well, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens post-cancellation) or error handling, which are important given the tool's destructive nature.

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 100%, with the parameter 'orderId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Cancel') and target resource ('a pending token launch order'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the scope ('only works for unpaid orders'). This provides precise differentiation from tools like megalaunch_get_order or megalaunch_list_orders.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('only works for unpaid orders'), providing clear context and exclusion criteria. This helps the agent avoid using it for paid orders, which is crucial guidance given the sibling tools.

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