cancelOrder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cancel') but doesn't describe what happens after cancellation (e.g., order status changes, potential fees, confirmation requirements), whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'configured account' suggests authentication but lacks specifics about permissions needed.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere. Every word earns its place, and the structure is straightforward.

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 (canceling orders) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after cancellation, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. The context signals show 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, but the behavioral aspects are largely undocumented.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'configured account' which relates to 'accountName' parameter but doesn't provide new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('cancel') and resource ('an existing order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'using a configured account' which adds context about authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createOrder' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing order), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'fetchOpenOrders' or 'fetchOrder'. The phrase 'using a configured account' hints at authentication but doesn't provide clear usage context.

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