delete_habit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is irreversible (不可恢复), that a confirm flag is mandatory, and that user confirmation is required beforehand — the key destructive-action facts. It omits side effects such as whether check-in history is cascade-deleted, which would matter for a destructive tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement front-loaded; every clause (must pass confirm, irreversible, confirm with user) earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety semantics an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the undocumented id parameter and unspecified cascade behavior on related check-in data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives real meaning for confirm (must be true, action is irreversible), going beyond the schema's bare default=false, but leaves id entirely unexplained — no guidance on where the habit id comes from or its format.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair (删除一个习惯 / delete a habit), which cleanly separates it from delete_todo and delete_countdown in the sibling list. It stops short of an explicit differentiation statement, but the resource name carries the distinction.

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 states a hard precondition (confirm=true must be passed) and a procedural guideline (confirm with the user first), which is clear context for when/how to call. It does not mention alternatives such as update_habit if the user only wants to stop tracking rather than erase, so no exclusions are supplied.

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