jcourse_delete_review

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the irreversibility note (可能无法恢复) plus the mandatory confirm gate, which is useful operational context. It still doesn't say what happens when confirm is false or what the response returns.

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?

Single compact sentence with the destructive warning and the confirm requirement front-loaded; 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; description supplies irreversibility and the confirm gate. Minor gap: no mention of authentication or failure behavior for a destructive write.

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% and the confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema ('仅在用户已明确授权此次远端写入后设为 true'), so the description's mention of confirm=true is largely redundant. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (删除) + resource (评价) + scope (我发布的), which separates it cleanly from create_review, update_review and the read-only list/get siblings.

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?

States a precondition (confirm=true) but does not contrast with alternatives such as update_review or explain when not to delete; the use case (removing one's own review) is only implied.

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