deleteRule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除规则' implies a destructive deletion operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related resources, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at just two characters, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient despite its short length. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single phrase doesn't.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and rich sibling toolset, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'rule' is, the consequences of deletion, or how it fits within the broader system, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'ruleName' documented as '要删除的规则名称' (the name of the rule to delete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '删除规则' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'deleteRule' in Chinese. It provides no additional information about what resource is being deleted, what a 'rule' represents in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'deleteGroup' or 'deleteValue'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the rule must exist or be disabled first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'disableRule', 'removeRuleFromGroup', or 'deleteGroup'. The description offers zero contextual usage information.

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