撤回工单

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a mutation but not a destructive one. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that confirm=true is mandatory and maps to GET /api/v2/fetch/undo. However, it does not detail what happens if the order is already executed or the exact status change, but given annotations this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and condition, the second gives the endpoint and confirmation requirement. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the user scope, the execution state, and the mandatory confirm parameter. It could potentially mention the effect on order status, but the description is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the confirm=true requirement already encoded in the schema's const:true, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not add details about work_id format or behavior beyond '工单号'.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: '撤回自己提交、尚未执行的工单' (withdraw your own submitted, not-yet-executed order), and also provides the corresponding API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_order and audit_order by specifying the action and scope.

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 gives clear context: only for own submitted orders that have not yet been executed, with mandatory confirm=true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope ('自己提交、尚未执行') is a clear guideline. It lacks explicit exclusions such as 'do not use for orders already executed', but these are implied.

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