deleteValue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除值' only indicates a destructive deletion action but reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, affects dependencies), authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 phrase '删除值', which is extremely concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structure (e.g., front-loaded purpose, usage notes) and fails to convey necessary details for a deletion tool. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this score low.

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 with no annotations or output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'value' refers to, the consequences of deletion, error handling, or return values. Sibling tools like 'getAllValues' suggest a value management system, but the description provides no context to integrate this tool meaningfully.

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 'name' documented as '值名称' (value name) in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format constraints, examples, or relationship to other tools). Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 '删除值' (delete value) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'deleteValue' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of value is being deleted (e.g., configuration value, database entry), what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'deleteGroup' or 'deleteValueGroup'. While the verb is clear, the object is too vague for meaningful differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the value must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system values), or relationships to sibling tools like 'deleteValueGroup' or 'getAllValues'. Without any context, an agent would struggle to choose this tool appropriately.

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