delete_caseDelete a specific debugging case by its ID to remove outdated or incorrect error records, keeping the debug assistant's memory accurate and useful.
删除指定案例
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely says 'delete'. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects, or what happens to associated data, which is critical for a destructive operation.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place because it repeats the title and omits necessary context.
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, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks any information about side effects, return values, error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter, case_id, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so the agent must guess what case_id refers to and how it should be formatted.
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 '删除指定案例' is a direct translation of the title 'Delete Case', adding only the word 'specified'. It states the verb and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like clear_memory or mark_effective beyond the name itself.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.