engine_option_clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of reversibility, whether the option is removed permanently, or what error occurs for an unknown key. Little value beyond the annotations.

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 short clause with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise. It is front-loaded, which is a positive, but there is nothing else to front-load.

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 mutation with no output schema and no guidance beyond annotations, the description is too thin. It never says that the option is removed from the engine config, whether a confirmation or permission is required, or how it relates to engine_option_set.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about which key identifies the option, which option namespace it targets, or how project/workdir interact.

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 verb+resource (delete an engine private option), which is more than a tautology, but it is minimally specified and does not differentiate itself from the sibling engine_option_set beyond the opposite direction. An agent can guess its purpose but gets no scope details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus engine_options/engine_option_set, no prerequisites, no note about whether the key must exist or what happens if it does not. Usage is only implied by the name and the word '删掉'.

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