anon_delete_announcements_announcement_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the cascade effect (all confirmation records are destroyed too) and the auth requirement (announcement:manage). Those are exactly the kinds of consequences an agent needs before issuing an irreversible call, and they are not derivable from 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?

Four short sentences, no filler: purpose, permission, side effect, endpoint/parameter note. Front-loaded with the action and consequence, with the mechanical details (endpoint, project inference) trailing.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema and a fully-covered annotation set, the description supplies everything relevant: what is deleted, what else is deleted, what permission is required, and which parameters are/are not expected.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does so by clarifying that only announcementId is supplied and the project is inferred from the API key, explicitly forbidding a projectId the agent might otherwise invent. It adds no detail about the announcementId value format itself, but that is largely self-evident from the name.

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?

Precise verb+resource ('删除公告') plus a scope detail — it also deletes all confirmation records — that an agent would not learn from the name alone. An agent can tell this apart from anon_patch_announcements_announcement_id and anon_post_announcements_announcement_id_confirm without opening any schema.

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?

States a concrete gating prerequisite (announcement:manage permission) that tells the agent when this call will succeed, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the PATCH/POST announcement siblings.

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