config_unset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the non-obvious behavioral consequence: removal triggers layered fallback rather than a reset to default, and the global_scope param allows targeting the global layer. It stops short of saying exactly what is destroyed or whether removal is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key behavioral distinction front-loaded and the clarifying parenthetical inline. Nothing superfluous, though it is terse enough that more routing guidance could have fit.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description conveys the core layered-fallback semantics. It omits interaction details between project and global_scope and the reversibility of the operation, but is largely sufficient to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented; the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description's '某一层' and layer-fallback wording loosely maps to the project/global_scope layer concept but adds no format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: deleting one item from a layer so it falls back to the next layer. The parenthetical '不是设成默认值' sharply distinguishes the effect from a default-reset, which is genuinely clarifying. It does not, however, name how it differs from siblings like config_set.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing, but the '回落到下一层' semantics imply the scenario (removing an override so a lower layer takes effect). Usage is implied rather than stated, and no sibling such as config_set is named.

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