Plan Order Cancellation

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that this tool creates a staged operation rather than directly executing the cancellation. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) by indicating a non-read-only planning action that does not itself destroy data, without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and the critical lifecycle requirement. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the most important detail (staged operation requiring preview/execute) is placed clearly.

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 the tool's complexity (six parameters, no output schema, and a clear three-phase sibling workflow), the description sufficiently explains where this tool fits but omits details about the return value or how to reference the created plan. The sibling tool names and schema partially compensate for this gap, but a brief mention of the plan ID or next steps would make it more complete.

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?

The schema already describes all six parameters, including their default values and enums, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it also does not enhance understanding beyond the structured definitions.

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 tool's function: 'Plan an order cancellation.' It explicitly introduces the concept of a staged operation that must be previewed and executed, which distinguishes it from the sibling order_cancel_preview and order_cancel_execute tools by explaining its role as the initial planning step.

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 delineates the proper usage sequence by stating the operation must be previewed and executed, implying that this tool is the first step in a multi-phase workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like order_cancel_preview, but the staged reference provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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