Cancel an order by ID, record a cancellation reason, and trigger notifications to keep order status and customers updated.
Cancel an order, record the cancellation reason, and trigger cancellation notifications
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Explicit reason for cancelling the order (e.g. 'Customer requested cancellation', 'Model unprintable') | |
| orderId | Yes | Unique numeric ID of the order to cancel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful side effects beyond a bare 'cancel' — the reason is persisted and cancellation notifications are fired — which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to payments/refunds or in-progress jobs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the action first, then its effects. No filler, though the three-clause list is slightly dense for one sentence.
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 two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the action and its side effects. It falls short on the operational context an agent would want — permission requirements, state preconditions, and refund/consequence handling — which matters more given there are zero annotations.
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 both parameters carry descriptions with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'record the cancellation reason' implies the reason is stored rather than just logged, adding slight meaning, but nothing about format constraints or ID validation beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Cancel an order') plus the two side effects (recording the reason, triggering notifications). It distinguishes clearly from sibling mutations like update_order and update_order_status by name, though it never explicitly contrasts them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_order_status or update_order, nor any prerequisites (e.g., only cancellable while in a certain state). The agent must infer the correct tool from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.