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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context annotations cannot carry: login is required, deletion is irreversible, it cascades to all negotiations, and non-owners receive a specific 403 not_your_need error. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: the login precondition leads, then destruction scope, then the sibling comparison, then the error case. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 the precondition (login), the effect (irreversible cascade delete), the alternatives, and the failure mode. 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?

Single needId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no format or constraint detail about needId, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and scope: hard-deletes the user's own need plus all its negotiations (硬删本人需求及全部接洽). It is immediately distinguishable from cancel_need and unpublish_need, which it names explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes between the three deletion-like siblings: cancel_need keeps records, unpublish_need is a reversible takedown, and this tool is the irreversible option used after confirmation. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both stated.

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