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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the rest and does it well: it discloses the login requirement, the ownership constraint, the cascading effect on nested comments and likes, and that the action is irreversible. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 login prerequisite is front-loaded in brackets, the consequence follows, and the workflow is compressed into a compact arrow chain. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, ownership limits, side effects, reversibility, and the discovery-to-confirmation flow. There is no gap an agent would need to guess at before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and the momentId description already lists three source tools, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by narrowing the intended lookup path to get_user_moments with no userId, which resolves the ambiguity the schema leaves open, but it adds no format or validation detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('删除我发的一条消息圈') plus the scope restriction ('只能删自己的'), and it spells out the cascade consequence (comments and likes stop displaying). An agent can distinguish this from get_moment, list_moments_feed, or comment_moment 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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use get_user_moments without a userId to locate the target, read it back to the user for confirmation, then call this tool. The exclusion ('只能删自己的') is stated outright, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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