order_cancel

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

No annotations are given, and the description only states the action and scope. It does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., order must be pending), or error behavior, so the agent has no information about failure modes or consequences.

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 concise two-part sentence, immediately stating the action and the counterpart, with no redundant words.

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?

While the purpose is clear and an output schema exists, the tool has no annotations and zero parameter coverage, and the description omits behavioral details and parameter semantics, making it under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (agent, order_id, idempotency_key). The only hint is 'by id' which vaguely maps to order_id, but provides no guidance on idempotency_key or agent.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('pending order by id'), and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool order_cancel_all, making the scope unambiguous.

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 identifies order_cancel_all as the counterpart, implying this is for single-order cancellation vs bulk. However, it lacks explicit conditions like 'use order_replace to modify' or 'only works on pending orders', leaving some ambiguity relative to other order tools.

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