cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels orders and mentions an environment variable requirement, but doesn't describe what cancellation entails (immediate vs. pending, reversibility, confirmation response), potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool in a trading context.

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 that communicates the core purpose and a key requirement. There's no unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after cancellation (success/failure responses, order status changes), doesn't address potential risks or limitations, and provides minimal behavioral context. The environment variable mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'order_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain order IDs. Given the high schema coverage, the 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 clearly states the action ('cancel') and target ('an existing order'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like modifying or deleting orders, which aren't present in the sibling list but could be relevant in a trading context.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires SHIOAJI_TRADING_ENABLED=true'), which provides some usage context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modifying orders or letting orders expire. It doesn't explain relationships with sibling tools like list_orders (to find order_id) or place_order (the opposite action).

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