cancel_stop_loss

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

Annotations already indicate destructive, idempotent, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by clarifying that the destructiveness only applies to future stop-loss sends and not to already-executed sales. This prevents the agent from assuming the tool will undo a completed trade.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and follows with the critical limitation. Every clause earns its place, and the structure supports quick parsing by an agent.

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 cancellation tool with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain the stop_id parameter, does not describe expected outputs or errors, and relies on the agent inferring that 'SL' means stop-loss. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage and the only parameter, stop_id, is not explained in the description. An agent can infer that stop_id is likely the identifier of the stop-loss to cancel, but the description does not provide any guidance on where to find it, what format it uses, or how it relates to the tool's behavior. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 names a specific verb ('Desactiva'), a specific resource ('futuros envíos del SL'), and explicitly rules out a different outcome ('no revierte una venta ya reservada/enviada'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like cancel_order without needing to name them, and it tells an agent exactly what effect to expect.

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?

The description provides clear context on when the tool is appropriate: it deactivates future stop-loss triggers. It also gives an explicit exclusion by stating that it does not reverse an already reserved/sent sale. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the boundary is clear enough for an agent to avoid misusing it.

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