anon_delete_custom_tools_tool_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds a critical side effect the annotations cannot express: deletion cascades to revoke all API keys issued by the tool. It also discloses the auth requirement and the implicit project scoping.

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?

Three compact sentences: action, permission and cascade consequence first, then the raw endpoint, then the scoping note. Every line earns its place and the disruptive consequence is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the action, the auth prerequisite, the cascading side effect, and the project-scoping rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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 0% and the only parameter (toolId) carries no format detail, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by explaining why projectId is absent (project inferred from the API key), which clarifies the shape of the required path argument, though it adds nothing on toolId itself.

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 and resource ('删除自定义工具' / delete custom tool) and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/create/update variants (anon_get_custom_tools, anon_post_custom_tools, anon_patch_custom_tools_tool_id). It even supplies the underlying DELETE route, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

It states the required permission scope ('需 tools:manage 权限') and clarifies that projectId must not be supplied because the project is derived from the API key, which is exactly the kind of precondition an agent needs. What is missing is explicit when-to-use vs. when-not / alternative guidance, but the operational context is clear.

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