vtex_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Cancel an order' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions are needed, how it affects related entities (e.g., inventory, payments), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('Cancel an order') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core action.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), side effects, or operational constraints. The agent has insufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, with both parameters ('orderId', 'reason') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of orderId, examples of valid reasons). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Cancel an order' clearly states the verb ('cancel') and resource ('order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'vtex_delete_product' or 'vtex_archive_coupon' which perform different destructive operations on different resources, but the specificity is adequate for basic understanding.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., order status requirements), consequences, or when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'vtex_start_handling' or 'vtex_invoice_order'). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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