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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it removes homepage display and recommendations, and retains sent requests and history. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining specific consequences and what is not affected, improving the agent's understanding of the operation's impact.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effects. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the essential details without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main behavior and when to call it. However, it fails to describe the 'id' parameter, which is essential for correct invocation. Without that, an agent may not know what to pass. The description is adequate for the operation's high-level behavior but incomplete for parameter usage.

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 description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about what the id represents or any constraints. An agent is left to infer that it is the plan identifier, but this is not explicit. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 tool deletes the user's own cooperation plan, removes it from homepage and recommendations, and retains sent requests and history. It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (cooperation plan), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_need and unpublish_need by specifying the resource and scope. The condition '仅当用户要求删除时调用' adds a precise trigger.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: only when the user requests deletion. It also clarifies what is preserved (sent requests, history), helping an agent understand the side effects. However, it does not mention alternatives like editing or unpublishing the plan, which would strengthen routing. Still, the primary usage condition is clear.

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