Cancel Grid Order

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool is a dry run unless a confirmation code is passed, that the code is derived from the exact request and is single-use, and that the agent must never confirm on its own initiative. This is critical behavioral context for a destructive action, and it does not contradict the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the verb/resource is front-loaded, the mandatory confirmation protocol is stated early, and the single-use nature and prohibition on autonomous confirmation are packed into four tight sentences with no fluff.

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, safety-critical tool, the description covers the entire correct invocation sequence: dry run, preview to user, explicit confirmation, and the exact confirmation code semantics. The schema fills in the remaining details (expiry, single-use, change invalidation), and no output schema is needed to make the flow actionable.

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 fully documents both order_id and execute. The description reinforces the two-step confirmation flow but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema's execute description already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel (terminate)') and resource ('a grid order by order_id'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes grid_cancel from the sibling cancel_order by specifying the grid-order domain, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit mandatory protocol: call without execute, show the preview, and call again only after user confirmation. It does not, however, contrast this tool with alternatives such as cancel_order or grid_replace, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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