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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds material context they cannot convey: login requirement, irreversibility, that the storage object is actually removed, and the consent-gated preview/previewHash handshake. This goes well beyond the annotation set.

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 critical constraint (login required, irreversible) is front-loaded in brackets, followed by the preview flow, permission scoping, and the sibling alternative in tightly packed clauses. Every clause earns its place with no 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the required two-step consent flow, role-based permissions, and the correct alternative for a common misuse. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: preview defaults to true, previewHash is only supplied alongside preview=false, and both are used in the execution phase. It does not add anything for activityRef/materialId, though their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 (删除/remove) and resource (活动资料或本人照片) with clear scope: organizers delete materials, attendees delete only their own session photos. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_activity_material, which handles visibility-only changes.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase workflow: call with default preview=true first to inspect the activity, exact file and visibility, then re-issue with the same params plus previewHash and preview=false only after the user explicitly consents. It also names the alternative (update_activity_material) for visibility-only edits and states the permission conditions per role.

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