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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what disappears (homepage display and recommendations) and what survives (already-sent cooperation requests and historical snapshots). It omits reversibility and permission requirements, and '本人' only implicitly signals ownership enforcement, so it is not fully complete.

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 short clauses with the action first, the side effects second and the invocation precondition last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool with no annotations, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what it removes, what it preserves, and when it is permitted. The remaining gap is identifier provenance, which matters because the schema gives no clue about the id's origin.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it never says the id is a cooperation-plan identifier, nor how to obtain it (e.g. from list_cooperation_plans). The phrase '本人方案' hints that the plan must belong to the caller, which is the only added meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('删除本人方案' – delete my own cooperation plan) and immediately scopes the effect ('移除主页展示和推荐'). This distinguishes it from the sibling write tools save_cooperation_plan, edit_cooperation_plan_with_agent and list_cooperation_plans 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?

The last clause '仅在用户要求删除时调用' gives an explicit gating condition for when to call, which is unusually clear for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g. unpublishing or archiving via another tool) or say what to do when the user's intent is ambiguous, so it stops short of a 5.

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