cancel_order

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context about the confirmation requirement (confirm: true) needed for execution, but does not describe return values, error conditions, or side effects beyond this safety guard.

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?

Single well-structured sentence with essential information front-loaded. Every element serves a purpose: action verb, resource specification, domain qualifier, and critical safety requirement.

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 destructive operation, mentions the confirmation safety mechanism. However, lacks output description (no output schema exists) and does not indicate what constitutes success/failure or preconditions like order status.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Russian descriptions. Description reinforces the confirm parameter requirement but primarily mirrors schema content. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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 specific action (cancel/отменить) and resource (exchange order/биржевую заявку) with domain context (T-Investments). Uses terminology ('биржевую заявку') that implicitly distinguishes from stop orders (sibling cancel_stop_order), though explicit differentiation would strengthen this.

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?

Provides critical safety guidance that confirm: true is required for execution. However, lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling cancel_stop_order or guidance on order state prerequisites (e.g., only active orders).

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