Cancel Fund Order

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true): it discloses that the default call is a no-op dry run, that the confirmation code is single-use, expires in 10 minutes, and is bound to the exact order. These are exactly the mutation safeguards an agent needs and none are derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the what, the dry-run default, and the protocol follow in order with no filler. Slightly long for a 3-parameter tool, but each clause carries distinct operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a dry run returns (a preview that echoes the order being cancelled) and the safety envelope around the confirmation code. Auth requirement, id source, and protocol are all covered, leaving no gap for a destructive, open-world tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters in depth, including the dry-run protocol for `execute`. The description adds the provenance note for `order_id` (from fund_orders) but largely restates what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + resource + key ('Cancel a fund order by order_id') in the first sentence, and pins the identifier's source to `fund_orders`. The 'fund' domain qualifier cleanly separates it from generic siblings like cancel_order and grid_cancel.

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?

Spells out the exact call sequence: call once without `execute`, show the returned preview, then re-call with the code only after explicit confirmation of that exact order. It also states the precondition (requires auth) and never leaves the when/when-not to inference.

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