Cancel order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that cancellation is status-dependent, that the optional reason is only kept in the MCP log and not sent to the KIT API, and that no request body is required. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'cancel' statement.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential context—status dependency, reason handling, and body requirement—with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple cancellation tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, a key constraint (status), behavior of the optional reason, and request format. It could be more explicit about success/failure responses or which statuses allow cancellation, but that level of detail is not necessary for this tool.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, with the reason field clearly documented as conversation/tool-log only. The description repeats this same information without adding new parameter-level meaning. It adds the non-parameter note about no request body, but that does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb+resource phrase 'Cancel an order,' which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like confirm_order and complete_order_delivery by naming the exact operation.

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 by noting that cancellation depends on the order's current status, setting expectations for when the tool may not work. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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