cancel_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no confirmation is required, which is useful, but it does not say whether cancellation is irrevocable, whether partial fills are handled, or what constraints exist (e.g., only for own orders). For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, but it is so brief that it under-serves the agent on behavioral detail.

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?

Output schema covers return values, but the tool is a mutating operation with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage context. Missing details like prerequisites, error conditions, and irreversibility make the description incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 0% and the description does not explain account_seq or order_id. The agent must guess their meaning from names alone. The description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not.

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 (Cancel) and resource (a pending live order), and differentiates itself from place_order and modify_order by scope. The phrase 'pending live order' makes the target clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (for pending live orders) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives. It doesn't mention that completed or partially filled orders may require a different approach, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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