delete_todo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the key trait that the operation is irreversible (不可恢复) and gated behind a confirm flag plus user consent. It doesn't cover failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent id) or what a successful call returns, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler; the destructive warning and the confirm requirement are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, the confirm gate, and the human-confirmation prerequisite. Only error behavior and post-call state remain unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It correctly explains the non-obvious parameter — confirm must be true, not merely present, despite the schema defaulting it to false — but says nothing about id beyond what the property name implies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (删除一条待办), which cleanly separates it from the delete_habit and delete_countdown siblings. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from set_todo_done or update_todo, but the destructive framing makes the intent unambiguous.

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 gives a hard procedural precondition (must pass confirm=true, and consult the user first), which is real guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_todo_done for completing a task, so routing between siblings is left implied.

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