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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: login is required, the deletion cascades to comments and likes, and it is 不可恢复 (irreversible). Those behavioral facts are not derivable from the annotations alone.

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 bracketed, front-loaded blocks with zero filler: one for preconditions/effects, one for the tool chain. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 supplies the precondition (login), the side effects, the irreversibility, and the required preceding workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single momentId parameter is already documented in the schema, including which tools can supply the id. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (删除我发的一条消息圈) and immediately names the cascade scope (comments and likes) plus the ownership constraint (只能删自己的). An agent can distinguish it from get_moment, comment_moment, and like_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?

The 【组合链】 block explicitly routes the agent: call get_user_moments without userId, read the target to the user for confirmation, then invoke this tool. It also states the when-not condition (只能删自己的). It does not discuss alternative deletion paths, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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