Cancel an order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: money returns to the buyer's wallet, the seller is notified of the reason, and a confirmation step precedes the write. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., what happens if the seller already accepted).

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?

One tight sentence with the precondition, the effect, and the confirmation requirement all front-loaded; no filler.

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 destructive three-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers trigger, effect, side effects, and confirmation. Minor gaps: no error/precondition-failure behavior and no mention of the id parameter.

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 67% and the schema already explains requestId idempotency and the reason length/semantics. The description reinforces the reason's audience ("the seller is told the reason") but says nothing about the required `id`, leaving that to a bare string property.

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 plus a scoping precondition ("cancel an order the seller has not accepted yet"), which separates it from siblings like reject_seller_order or request_order_update. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't name the sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (user wants to cancel, seller has not yet accepted) and mentions that confirmation happens first, so the agent knows the flow. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for already-accepted orders.

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