share_delete_material

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the consequential detail that deletion may be irreversible (可能无法恢复) plus the two-step confirm requirement. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the delete is soft or hard.

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 zero filler; the scope and irreversibility warning come first and the confirm gate second, which is the right front-loading for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description covers what remains: scope, irreversibility, and the confirm contract. Only minor gaps (what the response returns, whether the delete is recoverable by admin) keep it from a 5.

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 100% and both params (confirm, material_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that confirm=true triggers execution, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource (删除资料) and narrows scope to the caller's own uploads (自己上传的资料), which separates it from share_update_material or share_delete_comment. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The scope restriction to self-uploaded materials and the confirm=true execution gate imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use X instead' or when-not-to-delete guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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