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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the behavioral load and does: it discloses this is a hard delete of all associated 接洽, that it is 不可恢复, that login is required, and that a non-owner call returns 403 not_your_need. That is the full failure/safety profile an agent needs for 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?

Four compact clauses, each earning its place: precondition (登录), effect and irreversibility, the two alternative siblings with their trade-offs, and the error case. Destruction and irreversibility are front-loaded rather than buried.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, everything that affects the call decision is present: auth requirement, cascading scope, irreversibility, alternatives, and the exact error code and reason for the ownership check. Nothing material 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 parameter needId with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the ownership constraint implied by '本人需求', not any format or sourcing guidance for the id. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 the specific action (hard delete) on a specific resource (本人需求) and adds the cascade scope (及全部接洽), which is precisely the detail that distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling names in this family (cancel_need, unpublish_need, delete_my_moment, delete_my_company).

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 the agent: cancel_need if records should be kept, unpublish_need if a reversible delisting is wanted. The '确认后' clause also signals that confirmation must be gathered before calling, which is exactly the decision an agent needs before an irreversible operation.

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