Remove Contingent Value

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 goes further by disclosing the operational guards: a plan-change double-gate, exact target echo, and a fixed confirmation phrase, plus post-removal verification. It stops short of describing permissions or rollback behavior.

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 with semicolons separating the action from its conditions. Compact and efficient, though the dense clause stacking slightly reduces immediate parseability.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the key safety mechanics (double-gate, confirmation phrase, verification). Remaining gaps are parameter-level format details, which the 0%-coverage schema does not fill.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It hints at the roles of contingent_value_id ("精确 CAV id"), expected_dataset ("目标精确回显"), and confirmation ("固定确认短语"), but leaves dataset_path vs expected_dataset distinction and exact formats unexplained. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 ("按精确 CAV id 移除条件值") plus scope (by exact CAV id, verify non-existence). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/add/export/import contingent-value tools without needing their schemas.

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?

It implies the removal scenario and names a precondition (requires a plan-change double-gate), but never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like add_contingent_value or when not to use it. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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