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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by disclosing that external calls execute directly under apikey identity and that confirmation is required, plus 'cost: free'. It still does not say what happens if the order is already filled or partially filled.

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?

Single compact line, front-loaded with category then the core action, then the ID constraint. '写操作' is stated twice (once with 需确认, once with the apikey execution note), a minor redundancy that could be merged.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers safety and identity but omits outcome behavior: what the response contains, error cases for filled/nonexistent orders, or whether cancellation is reversible. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 100%, so the description's restatement of the exchangeOrderId/clientOrderId mutual exclusion adds nothing over the schema, which already documents that rule. credentialId, symbol, and marketType are not addressed at all; baseline 3 applies.

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: '撤销未成交挂单' (cancel unfilled pending orders), with a category tag 【持仓与执行】. This implicitly separates it from close_position/flat_all siblings, which act on positions rather than resting orders, but it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase '未成交挂单' implies the precondition (an order that has not filled), and '需确认' signals a confirmation step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward close_position or flat_all for position exits.

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