Cancel order

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Order cancellation (before shipping)' and does not mention effects on order status, payment, inventory, permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise phrase with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded and economically written, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 mutating nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain prerequisites, consequences, or how to use cancel_reason, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already describes cancel_reason (50% coverage) and order_number is self-explanatory by name. The schema provides sufficient meaning for both parameters, so a baseline score 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?

The description '注文キャンセル（発送前）' explicitly states the action (cancel) and resource (order) with a scope qualifier (before shipping), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool rms_cancel_order_after_shipping. This meets the 'specific verb+resource+scope' criteria.

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 parenthetical 'before shipping' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implicitly excluding shipped orders. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative for after-shipping cancellations (though the sibling name does), so it falls short of a full 5.

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