cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the standing move is dropped, the unit stops where it is, and ongoing build or fortify is left alone. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the consequences of cancellation are clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and stays compact across three sentences. The parenthetical '(note: why)' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 and no output schema, it provides useful behavioral context and turn timing. However, it omits how to obtain the required order_id and does not help route between the many order-related siblings.

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 should compensate. It adds meaning only for the optional note parameter ('note: why'), while the required order_id is left without any description, format, or sourcing guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Close an open order as cancelled.' This clearly identifies the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like orders, give_order, or resume_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?

Provides one usage condition: 'Usable while it is not my turn.' However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to cancel versus resuming or issuing orders, and no alternatives are named despite many related siblings.

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