delete_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of warning the agent that this is a destructive operation (🔴 破坏性操作) gated by confirmed:true. It does not mention irreversibility or side effects on related content, but the core behavioral risk is clearly disclosed.

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 very short, front-loads the action, and then delivers the critical safety condition. Every word earns its place, and the warning emoji reinforces the destructive nature without adding noise.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the object, action, and required confirmation guard. The only gap is the lack of mention of post-delete effects, irreversibility, or expected response, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so both name and confirmed are already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the confirmed requirement but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '删除 concept 页' (delete concept page). This unambiguously distinguishes it from read_concept, create_concept, and delete_entity among the sibling tools, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to delete a concept, and only when confirmed:true is set. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as delete_entity, so it lacks clear exclusions.

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