tv_cancel_order

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds context: it mutates the broker, is paper-only, and returns both the cancelled order and remaining working orders. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the return value and scope.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action 'MUTATES' and the specific resource. No redundancy; every clause carries meaning.

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?

The description covers the operation, scope, constraints, and return value. It lacks error handling details or prerequisites, but for a cancel operation with clear annotations and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with parameter descriptions for all three fields. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond restating that it cancels by id, which the schema already implies. Baseline 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 tool cancels a working order by id, specifies it's for entry orders, and differentiates from bracket orders. It also mentions the connected TradingView broker and that it's paper-only, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like tv_close_position.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (cancel entry orders) and implicitly when not to (bracket orders belong to position). It doesn't name specific alternatives but provides clear scoping. The 'PAPER ONLY' constraint is a useful usage guard.

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