Cancel an unfunded order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does reveal key behavioral traits: cancellation is limited to unfunded escrows and restores listing stock. It doesn't mention auth, idempotency, or failure behavior, but the core mutation and constraint are clear.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main action and precondition are front-loaded, followed by the side effect and the exclusion/alternative, so every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives all essential operational context: what constitutes an eligible order, the side effect, and the fallback when cancellation isn't possible.

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 coverage is 100% and the orderId parameter is already described as 'Order ID to cancel'. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Cancels an order', with a precise scope ('escrow is still Initiated'). The definition differentiates itself from the website dispute/refund flow for funded cases, so an agent understands exactly what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool (order escrow in Initiated state) and when not to (once escrow is Funded), and points to the alternative channel (website dispute/refund flow). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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