批量删除子账号

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

The description explicitly warns '不可恢复' (irreversible), which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention the two-step confirm_token preview flow, but that is already documented in the input schema, and the description does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The irreversible warning is front-loaded, followed immediately by the action and id format.

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?

The combination of description and schema covers the product enum, id format, destructive nature, and confirm_token workflow. Without an output schema, it could describe the preview result more directly, but the schema's confirm_token parameter provides the needed context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: '动态住宅' loosely ties to the product enum, and the ids comma-separated rule repeats the schema.

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 uses a specific action ('批量删除') and resource ('动态住宅的多个子账号'), and it explains that ids are comma-separated sub-account IDs. This clearly differentiates it from single-delete sibling tools such as sub_account_delete.

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 implies the batch use case by saying it deletes multiple sub-accounts at once, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sub_account_delete or mention any exclusions. Usage is inferred 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.