cancel_order

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the agent knows this is a mutating destructive action. The description adds only the 'same order gate' context, which hints at validation behavior but doesn't elaborate on side effects, error handling, or reversibility. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It provides necessary context without filler, making every word purposeful.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and parameter source. The 'same order gate' reference is a bit cryptic but not fatal. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance by stating the order_id is 'shown in get_orders', giving the parameter a concrete source and practical context. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it doesn't explain formatting or edge cases.

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 explicitly states the action ('cancel') and the specific resource ('one open order'), and it distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one' versus cancel_all_orders. It also identifies the required identifier source, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: use this to cancel a single open order identified by order_id from get_orders. It references the 'same order gate as place_limit_order', implying shared validation constraints, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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