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

Annotations already cover destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds the authentication requirement and makes the idempotency concrete ('没有则 no-op'). It does not describe permissions/ownership nuances or response behavior, but the added auth context is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the login requirement and states scope, idempotency, and no-op behavior with zero wasted text.

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 two-parameter delete tool whose annotations disclose destructive/idempotent semantics and whose schema is fully documented, the description covers the auth prerequisite, scope, and no-op outcome. No output schema exists and none is needed for a deletion, though the description could note irreversibility or ownership constraints.

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 both required parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the targetType enum values. The description's restatement of the object types adds no syntax or semantic detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 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 combination (delete the current user's rating) and enumerates the affected object types (product/park/creator), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like delete_my_moment or delete_my_company, though it does not explicitly name or contrast against an alternative.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (【需要登录】 login required) and the no-op condition, which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this over a sibling such as rate_product (re-rating) or when deletion is inappropriate. Usage must be inferred.

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