delete_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated resources. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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?

The description is a single, efficient phrase in Chinese that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter guidance in the description, this is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description fails to address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling that are essential for safe tool invocation.

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 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely missing from the schema. The tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever, not even mentioning the required 'cfg' object or its nested fields like 'workspace_name' and 'submission_id'. However, with only 1 top-level parameter (the cfg object), the baseline is 3 since the agent can infer this is a configuration object.

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 'Bio-OS 删除工作流提交' clearly states the action (删除/delete) and resource (工作流提交/workflow submission) in Chinese, making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'check_workflow_run_status' or 'get_workflow_logs', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing submission), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other submission-related tools like 'check_workflow_run_status' or 'get_workflow_logs'.

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