delete_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat deletion or idempotency. It adds value by disclosing the confirmation requirement, which is critical for a destructive operation and is not captured by annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('删除一个已保存咨询') and appends the confirmation condition. It avoids redundancy and is easily scannable. While brief, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

Given that the tool is destructive, has an output schema, and has zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics entirely and does not clarify what the confirm parameter does or how run_id is used. The confirmation rule is helpful, but without parameter explanations and explicit side effects beyond the annotation, the description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention run_id or confirm, nor their purpose or relationship to the confirmation condition. The agent is left to infer that run_id identifies the consultation and confirm gates the operation, which is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 ('删除' = delete) and a clear resource ('已保存咨询' = saved consultation), which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run and save_run. The confirmation condition adds a precise behavioral constraint without obscuring the core purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only after explicit user confirmation ('只有用户明确确认后才执行'). This provides clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, though no competing delete tool exists, so a 4 is warranted.

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