anon_delete_work_modules_mid

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the required permission scope and the fact that the target project is inferred from the API key, which prevents a likely caller mistake.

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 short, front-loaded lines with no filler: action, permission requirement, then endpoint/scoping. Every sentence carries information, though the endpoint restatement is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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-param destructive delete with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers action, auth, and scoping. The only material gap is that it never explains how to obtain the mid value.

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 there is one nested parameter (path.mid), so the schema alone leaves mid undefined. The description compensates partially by showing the DELETE template with {mid} and explaining that projectId is implicit, indicating mid is a module identifier drawn from the path, but it never defines what a module id is or where to obtain it.

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 (删除/delete) and resource (任务模块/work module) plus the exact HTTP route, so the agent knows precisely what is destroyed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling deletes like anon_delete_milestones or anon_patch_work_modules_mid, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Adds the precondition that work:manage permission is required and clarifies that projectId must not be supplied, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over other work-module operations (patch/post variants) or any when-not-to-use condition.

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