cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally: it details the entire cascade including invoice cancellation, disposition reversal, stock restoration, FastBound delete queueing, Sales Order cancellation, ShipStation void, and refund booking. It also notes that reason is required and recorded.

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 content is front-loaded with the action and packed with necessary behavioral detail in one dense sentence. It is readable but could be improved with light structuring, such as separating the cascade effects into bullets; still, no information is wasted.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral context for a complex, destructive operation despite absence of annotations and output schema. It does not explain what happens when confirm=false, describe the return value, or explicitly identify sales_invoice as the invoice identifier, leaving minor but relevant gaps.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for reason (required and recorded), confirm (must be true), and refund_mode/refund_reference (used when a refund is due). However, the required sales_invoice parameter is not explicitly defined beyond the title and the cascade mention of invoice cancellation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a submitted counter/dealer transfer order' and ties it to the Pending Order page's Cancel Order action. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling disposal/cancellation tools like dispose_order and cancel_consignment.

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 establishes clear context by identifying the affected order type (counter/dealer transfer order) and the exact page action. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of sibling cancel/dispose tools, but the resource and page reference make the intended scenario reasonably unambiguous.

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