order_cancel_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key scope: 'every pending/held order' and the optional restriction to 'one account', implying that without an account it applies across all accounts. However, it does not mention irreversibility, idempotency implications, or any side effects, so it is not fully transparent.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a bulk destructive operation with three parameters, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core purpose and account restriction but omits critical context like idempotency behavior and the meaning of 'agent'. While the output schema may explain return values, the operational context is incomplete for a full understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'account' parameter ('optionally restricted to one account'), leaving 'agent' and 'idempotency_key' unexplained. Idempotency_key is particularly important for a cancel-all operation to avoid duplicate execution, and its absence weakens parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' and identifies the resource as 'every pending/held order', which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'order_cancel' (which cancels a single order). The optional account restriction is also stated, further clarifying scope.

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 phrase 'every pending/held order' implies a bulk operation, making it clear this is for mass cancellation rather than canceling individual orders (like order_cancel). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so a small deduction applies.

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