Delete Attribute Rules

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context (deletion requires schema-change dual gate, exact target echo, fixed confirmation phrase), which is useful but incomplete – it doesn't specify irreversibility or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, dense sentence that packs multiple requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes prerequisites, but the extreme density and lack of punctuation make it harder to parse than necessary.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It hints at the need for confirmation and exact target matching but doesn't explain parameter roles, output, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only vaguely mentions '精确规则名集合' and '目标精确回显', without explaining the 5 parameters (rule_type, rule_names, confirmation, dataset_path, expected_dataset) or their formats/constraints. This leaves parameters essentially 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?

The description states a specific verb (删除/delete) and resource (精确规则名集合/exact rule name collection), clearly indicating what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like add_attribute_rule or list_attribute_rules, so it falls 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?

The description mentions prerequisites (方案变更双门, 目标精确回显, 固定确认短语) but doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. It implies these are requirements but doesn't frame them as usage conditions.

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