order-cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — irreversibility — but says nothing about the real side effects (money movement on refund, inventory mutations, outbound customer email/SMS) or permission requirements, all of which live only in the schema text.

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 waste; the destructive consequence is front-loaded in the second sentence where it is most likely to be read before invocation.

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 destructive, irreversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and irreversibility but omits the confirm-with-user expectations and the financial/notification side effects that an agent needs before calling it unprompted.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of refunding, restocking, and notification maps loosely onto three optional parameters but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents in detail.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Cancel an order') plus the three main option categories (refund, restock, notification). It doesn't name a sibling it must be distinguished from, which the schema hints at ('use refund-create instead') but the description leaves out.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus refund-create or order-close-open, both of which are in the sibling list and are relevant alternatives. 'Cancellation is irreversible' is a caution, not routing guidance.

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