anon_delete_materials_resource_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral context: it is a cascade delete that also destroys all versions and files, and it requires materials:manage authorization. That scope-of-destruction detail is not available in 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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by permission requirement, deletion scope, and endpoint. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly dense with four clauses but still efficient.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations that already flag the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what is destroyed, the permission gate, and the fact that no projectId is needed. Nothing critical is missing, though confirmation/irreversibility is only implied.

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?

Only one parameter exists with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving the endpoint template showing resourceId in the path and explicitly stating the project is derived from the API key and projectId must NOT be passed — useful negative guidance. It still does not describe resourceId's format, keeping it from a 5.

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 and resource (删除资源 = delete resource) and adds that it removes the resource together with all its versions and files, which sharpens the scope. The embedded DELETE endpoint confirms the target. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, so 4 rather than 5.

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 provides a real prerequisite — the materials:manage permission — which helps an agent know when it is allowed to call this. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as anon_patch_materials_resource_id or anon_get_materials_resource_id for non-delete needs.

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