cancel_order

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that the operation is irreversible, that execution is gated on human approval, which channel the approval uses, the two-minute timeout, and that refusals are logged. That is exactly the kind of consequence and side-effect detail annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and the irreversible/gated nature are front-loaded, and the alternative route to add_note closes the paragraph. The approval-channel sentence is long, but each clause (refusal, timeout, no channel) carries distinct operational information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, gating, fallback channel, timeout and failure logging. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 single order_id parameter already carries an example and a pointer to list_orders, so the description adds nothing about parameters. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Cancel an order'), and the closing sentence names the sibling add_note with the condition that selects it, so an agent can separate this from the other tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative ('To record information without cancelling, use add_note') plus the conditions under which the tool will not run (refused, no response within two minutes, no approval channel). That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use and what happens otherwise in one short paragraph.

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