Da Delete Where

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious operational behavior: a destructive gate must be enabled and an exact expected_count is required, implying a safety guard against mass deletion. It does not mention what happens on count mismatch or the max_rows_deleted cap, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentence pair separated by a semicolon; the action is front-loaded and the safety precondition follows. No filler text, though it is terse enough that some needed detail is omitted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the destructive-gate plus exact-count requirements cover the critical safety context for a delete. The main gap is the undocumented max_rows_deleted cap and mismatch behavior.

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 compensate. It conveys the meaning of where_clause and expected_count (exactness matters), but says nothing about dataset_path format or max_rows_deleted (default 1000), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 resource ('按 where_clause 删除数据集记录') with the filtering mechanism, which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling deletes like da_delete_selected, gp_delete_features, and gp_truncate_table that operate on selections or whole tables. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Prerequisites are stated (destructive gate must be enabled, expected_count must be exact), which is real usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over da_delete_selected or gp_delete_features. Usage is implied by the where-clause mechanism rather than spelled out.

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