Cancel order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description need not restate mutation/destruction. The description adds the account-type restriction, which is a usage constraint rather than behavioral disclosure. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description's contribution is minimal but not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the critical constraint with zero filler. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation and the simulated-accounts restriction. It does not explain 'working order' or the exact meaning of orderId, but these are likely implicit given the domain. Minor gaps remain, but overall it is adequate.

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 50%: accountId has a useful description ('Trading account ID from list_accounts'), but orderId has none. The tool description provides no parameter-specific information and does not compensate for the missing orderId description. An agent would have to infer orderId's meaning from the tool name, which is not explicit.

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 a working order') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like modify_order and close_position. The explicit constraint 'Simulated (non-follower) accounts only' further sharpens the purpose and differentiates it from any follower-account order tools.

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 provides an explicit condition for use: 'Simulated (non-follower) accounts only.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond that condition. Still, it gives clear context that narrows the selection among siblings.

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