MCP Session Saver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action is '永久删除' (permanent deletion), which is crucial behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential consequences, error conditions, permissions required, or what happens if the file doesn't exist - leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The trigger phrases and keywords are relevant for usage guidance. However, the Chinese punctuation and formatting could be slightly cleaner, and some information about behavioral consequences could be integrated more efficiently.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and usage triggers well, but lacks information about error handling, confirmation requirements, or what the tool returns. Given the permanent deletion nature, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'file_path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('删除' meaning delete/remove) and resource ('会话文件' meaning session file). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deletion rather than listing, reading, saving, or searching sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives for comparison.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('删除这个会话', '移除这条记录', etc.) and keywords ('删除', '移除', '清理', '不需要会话/对话/记录') indicating when to use this tool. It implies usage for permanent deletion of session files, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.

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