Cancel order

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description repeats this with 'DESTRUCTIVE' without adding more context. The 'pending' qualifier adds a constraint on order state, which is useful, but the description does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, side effects, or what happens to associated data. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, this is a minimal but acceptable addition.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action ('Cancel') and include a one-word emphasis on destructiveness. There is no wasted text, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It states the action and the pending-order constraint, but it does not explain when cancellation is allowed (e.g., order status prerequisites) or what the outcome is beyond cancellation. The annotations and schema cover the basics, so the description alone is not fully complete for an agent that needs to make nuanced decisions.

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 input schema fully documents order_id as a required string (UUID) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it simply mentions canceling a pending order, which does not clarify the exact format or how to obtain the order_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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') and the resource ('a pending order'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. The qualifier 'pending' distinguishes it from possibly canceling orders in other statuses, and the sibling tools include cancel_contract and cancel_contract_product, so specifying 'order' prevents confusion.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the raw operation. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_order_to_invoice or cancel_contract, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for non-pending orders'). The word 'pending' implies a condition, but that is not explicit guidance.

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