yearning_undo_order

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds the crucial condition of self-submitted and unexecuted orders, which is not captured in annotations. No behavioral traits beyond this are disclosed, but given the annotation coverage, 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 concise sentences: first states the action and conditions, second provides the underlying API. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 withdrawal operation with one well-documented parameter and existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It lacks error handling or fallback information, but these are likely covered by the output schema or common conventions.

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 0%, but the input schema itself provides a thorough description for the single parameter work_id, including the constraint. The tool description does not repeat this, which is acceptable. A brief mention in the description would be slightly better but not required.

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 the verb (撤回/withdraw) and resource (工单/work orders) with explicit conditions (自己提交、尚未执行/self-submitted and unexecuted), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yearning_submit_order or yearning_my_orders.

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 specifies that only the user's own unexecuted orders can be withdrawn, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for executed orders) or suggest alternative tools like yearning_rollback_sql.

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