yupao_remove_saved_job

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only but also not destructive in the platform sense. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that removal is local and does not undo platform submissions or communications, which aligns with destructiveHint=false and prevents a serious misunderstanding.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key scope clarification. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter removal tool, the description covers purpose and important non-effects, but it leaves the only parameter undocumented and does not describe what a successful removal returns or how to obtain the job_biz_id. Given no output schema and zero parameter coverage, this is only minimally complete.

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 sole parameter job_biz_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it or explain its format, source, or meaning. The phrase '指定' implies a specific job must be identified, but provides no compensating semantics for the undocumented parameter.

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: remove a specified local candidate job. It also clarifies that this does not revoke platform applications or communications, which meaningfully scopes the operation, though it does not name sibling tools that could be alternatives.

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 implicitly says when to use it by describing the operation as local saved-job removal and explicitly excludes platform application/communication changes. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus related tools like yupao_save_job, yupao_list_saved_jobs, or yupao_remove_preset.

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