anon_delete_lostfound_item_id

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the cascade side effects: photo original/preview storage objects and File documents are also deleted. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context an agent needs before calling a non-idempotent delete, plus the permission requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and permission requirement, then cascade behavior, then routing. Efficient overall, though interleaving the raw HTTP route between behavioral facts is slightly less scannable.

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 nested-schema, no-output-schema delete, the definition covers purpose, authorization, cascade destruction, and project scoping. The main gap is itemId semantics, which the nested schema does not fill in either.

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%, so the description carries the load. It usefully explains that projectId is not needed because the project is derived from the API key, but it never describes the one real parameter, itemId (format, source, constraints). Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('删除失物' / delete lost item) and the HTTP route makes the operation unambiguous against siblings like anon_get_lostfound_item_id, anon_patch_lostfound_item_id, and anon_post_lostfound.

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 supplies a genuine prerequisite (lostfound:manage permission) but never states when to choose this delete over alternatives such as anon_patch_lostfound_item_id for updates or a status change. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.

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