Cancel many orders

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the genuinely important context: unfiltered calls wipe bot-managed orders too, origin=manual is the escape hatch, the trade:write scope is required, and there is a 932 rpm limit shared across the trade-write group with an honest note that it is not a design target.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning before any parameter talk and keeps three tight paragraphs. The rate-limit paragraph is longer than strictly needed and drifts into advisory commentary, but every sentence carries usable 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 high-blast-radius bulk mutation with no output schema, it covers scope of destruction, the safety mitigation, auth requirements, rate limits, and a sketch of the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying the origin parameter to its consequence ('spare those' bot orders), which tells the agent what origin=manual actually protects rather than just what it filters.

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 with scope: 'Withdraws every open order matching the filter.' The word 'every' plus 'matching the filter' cleanly separates it from the singular sibling cancel_order, and it also describes the response ('answers with what happened to each one').

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('WITH NO FILTER THIS CANCELS EVERYTHING ON THE ACCOUNT') and a concrete mitigation ('pass origin=manual to spare those'), plus the imperative 'Narrow it before calling it.' It does not name the singular cancel_order sibling as the alternative for single-order cancellation, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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