주문 취소 (실거래 주의)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds a prominent warning that it affects real stock orders. It also specifies the status limitation and what is returned. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the operational scope and side effects, without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured: a warning, a one-sentence functional summary, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the critical caution and smoothly flows into operational details.

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 simple cancel tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the effect, target status, parameter meanings, and return value. It lacks explicit error-handling details, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully covers both parameters (accountSeq and orderId) with descriptions. The description adds cross-reference context for accountSeq (linking to toss_get_accounts response) and restates the purpose of orderId. This enriches meaning beyond the schema, compensating for any schema brevity.

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 cancels actual stock orders, specifying the verb 'cancel' and resource 'order'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cancellation and noting the specific order statuses (PENDING/PARTIAL_FILLED). The title emphasizes real trading caution, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explicitly states that it cancels orders in PENDING/PARTIAL_FILLED status, giving a clear condition for use. It implies when not to use (for orders outside these statuses) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools like modify_order. This provides clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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