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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by explaining the irreversible side effects: the badge spent at creation is refunded, the digital human vanishes from the map, and its conversation history is wiped. It also discloses the failure conditions (older than 24h, prior chat), which is exactly the behavioral context a destructive tool needs.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with scope and eligibility, then the alternative path, then the post-deletion effects — no sentence is filler. The heavy markdown emphasis inside the prose (bold AI-created) slightly clutters an otherwise efficient block.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers everything that matters: eligibility window, prior-chat restriction, refund behavior, cascade deletion of conversations, and the redirect for non-AI-created digital humans. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent the id comes from create_digital_human or my_digital_humans. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (撤销/删除) and a narrowly scoped resource (AI-created digital humans), and explicitly carves out the sibling case of in-app-created digital humans, telling the agent to use the in-app 「我的数字人」 flow instead. An agent can distinguish this from create_digital_human, get_digital_human, and my_digital_humans without opening any schema.

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?

States two hard preconditions for use — created within 24 hours and never chatted with — and names the alternative path for digital humans built on-site rather than via AI. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use/where-else cases are explicit.

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