cancel_meal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds two meaningful constraints, the full-refund window and refusal to silently sell on burza, but leaves unclear what 'confirmed' controls, whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions are required, and what side effects occur.

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 short and front-loads the key cancellation constraint. The second clause is concise but uses opaque 'burza' terminology that slightly reduces clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is substantially incomplete. It omits the required order_id semantics, the role of confirmed, error conditions, and the effect of cancellation on the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It never mentions order_id or the confirmed flag, including the important fact that confirmed defaults to false.

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 states a specific action ('Cancel') with a clear scoping constraint ('only within the full-refund window'), and the tool name supplies the meal resource. It does not explicitly define the sibling relationship to sell_on_burza, but the behavior note hints at it.

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 gives an explicit eligibility condition for cancellation and implies what happens outside that window. It does not name a recommended alternative action such as sell_on_burza when the refund window has passed.

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