Delete Definition Query

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: the operation passes through a destructive gate and requires confirm=true, which the annotations do not express. It does not, however, describe what is removed from the project file beyond the query itself.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target scope, and the gating requirement with no padding. Efficient, though the terse form leaves little room for the missing context noted elsewhere.

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 covered. For a destructive 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description only addresses confirm and the destructive gate, leaving the identifying parameters unexplained and no note on what happens if the named query does not exist.

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% across 6 parameters. The description only clarifies one of them (confirm=true), leaving aprx_path, map_name, member_name, name and member_type without any explanation. It partially compensates but the gap is large.

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/delete) and resource (唯一命名定义查询 / uniquely-named definition query) scoped to a layer/table, which distinguishes it from sibling set_definition_query, upsert_definition_query and list_definition_queries. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 states an invocation prerequisite (destructive gate + confirm=true) which helps the agent call it correctly. However it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to set_definition_query/upsert_definition_query, nor any indication of when deletion should be preferred or avoided.

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