cancel_order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context: it is allowed to bypass an active kill switch, and a dry_run mode produces a simulated cancel. It omits failure behavior for already-executed or partially-filled orders.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: what it does, when it is permitted, and the simulation variant. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive mutation the description leaves out what happens on failure, whether cancel is possible after partial fills, and how order_id is sourced, while introducing a phantom dry_run parameter.

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 single parameter order_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description does nothing to explain its format or where to obtain it. Worse, it advertises a dry_run mode that does not exist anywhere in the input schema, which can mislead an agent into passing a nonexistent argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('미체결 주문 취소' — cancel an unfilled order), and the '미체결' qualifier scopes it away from placing or previewing orders. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous against place_order/preview_order/order_detail.

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?

It gives one useful usage condition — the action is permitted even when the kill switch is engaged — which tells the agent this is a risk-reducing operation. It never states when not to use it (e.g., order already filled, or that order_detail/orders should be consulted to obtain the order_id), so routing guidance is only implied.

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