category_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the cascading behavior ('级联删除其下所有项目'), which is a critical side effect that an agent must know before invoking. It also correctly clarifies that tasks are not deleted, preventing potential confusion. This is good transparency for a destructive operation.

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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('删除指定分类'), immediately followed by the most important side effect. Every word earns its place, with no filler. It avoids reiterating the parameter details that are already in the schema.

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?

Given that this is a destructive action with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the action, the cascading behavior, and an exclusion (tasks not deleted). An agent likely has enough to decide whether to call it and what to expect. The only minor gap is not specifying if the operation is reversible, but that is not always essential.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'id', so the description does not need to add much. It could have added context about where to find the ID, but given the schema already documents '分类ID', the description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

The description clearly states the action (delete a category) and the resource (category), distinguishing it from siblings like category_list and category_create. It also adds a critical side-effect note about cascading deletion of items but not tasks, which helps clarify the scope of the action.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need to delete a category) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that tags use tag_delete, but since only one category deletion tool exists, the usage context is fairly clear from the name alone.

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