撤销条件单

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey: readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is true. It does not mention irreversibility, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects after the cancel request. The description is consistent with the annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds the key parameter constraint with no redundant filler. Every part earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool and no output schema, the description captures the essential: cancel the conditional order and provide one of two identifiers. However, it lacks guidance on behavior for invalid identifiers, both-or-neither ID cases, and possible response behavior, so the invocation context is only minimally 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds the crucial one-of relationship ('clientAlgoId 与 algoId 二选一'), which is not visible in the input schema. However, it does not define what each ID represents or how they differ, leaving partial semantic burden on the parameter names alone.

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 explicitly states the action ('撤销条件单' = cancel conditional order), naming the resource type as conditional/algorithmic orders. This clearly differentiates it from regular order cancellation tools like trading_cancel_order, but it does not explicitly named-and-distinguish sibling tools.

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 only gives the parameter constraint that clientAlgoId and algoId are mutually alternative; it does not say when to use this tool rather than trading_cancel_all or trading_cancel_order, nor what to do if the order was already filled or does not exist. There is essentially no play/sibling guidance.

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