ibkr_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is immediate, what happens if the order is already executed, or if confirmation is returned. The impact on other orders or account state is unaddressed.

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 very short (two sentences, no redundancy). However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, omitting essential details. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could include more context without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least mention the return value or outcome of cancellation. It fails to specify what the agent should expect upon success or failure, leaving the tool incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (order_id). The description does not explain the meaning or format of 'order_id' beyond the schema's type 'integer'. No details on how to obtain the order ID or validation constraints.

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 an open order') and identifies the target resource (open orders). It is distinguishable from sibling tools because no other tool cancels orders, but the description lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provides a constraint ('Paper account only') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as handling orders that are already filled or partially filled. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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