Cancel order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known; the description adds real value by disclosing the financial side effect (charged amounts returned) and that it is conditional on eligibility. It does not say whether cancellation is irreversible or what the response looks like on an ineligible order.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the operation plus its state constraint is front-loaded before the refund caveat.

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 single-parameter mutation with destructive annotations and no output schema, this covers purpose, precondition and side effect. The remaining gap is failure behavior (what happens when the order is not eligible) and whether the cancel is reversible.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions order_id, its accepted string-or-integer form, or which identifier type is expected. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 resource (Printful order) and narrows scope to orders in 'draft or pending' state. That scope restriction alone separates it from confirm_order, create_order, get_order and list_orders in the sibling set.

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 'draft or pending' qualifier tells the agent the precondition for calling it, and the eligibility clause implies refunds are conditional. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do when an order is not cancellable, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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