cancel_all_orders

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds critical context: user confirmation is required and the operation affects orders beyond those explicitly mentioned. This goes beyond the structured hints and meaningfully informs the agent about the tool's side effects.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description, combined with annotations and output schema, is fairly complete. It covers purpose, user confirmation, scope, and a gate reference. The vague 'same order gate' is a minor gap but mitigable by checking place_limit_order.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only restates 'symbol' without adding format, validation, or usage detail. The single parameter is simple and self-explanatory from the schema, so the description adds no meaningful semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Cancel every open order for a symbol.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'cancel_order' by emphasizing 'every open order' rather than a single order.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the symbol with the user first and notes the broad impact on orders the user may not have asked about. It also references the same order gate as place_limit_order, providing useful context, though it does not explicitly contrast with cancel_order.

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