User Del

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Tagging it a 危险写操作 correctly warns the agent the operation is destructive and mutating, which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it omits whether the action is irreversible, what happens to the user's home directory, shares, and ACLs, and what permissions are required.

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?

A single compact sentence with the danger warning front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations, the definition is thin: no confirmation requirements, no side-effect disclosure, no indication of what is returned or what fails. The output schema handles return values, but the behavior of a user deletion is largely unexplained.

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 schema already documents host, port, user, scheme, and profile. The description adds nothing about how to identify the target user (username vs UID) or connection-parameter behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb+resource: deleting a NAS user. It is clearly distinguishable from user_mod, user_add, and user_group_del by the word 删除 combined with 用户. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., cannot delete self or the last admin), and no mention of alternatives such as user_mod for disabling instead of deleting. The only hint is the parenthetical danger label, which signals caution but gives no routing information.

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