删除草稿

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds the meaningful detail that the action is irreversible (不可撤销), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid media_id, permission requirements, or whether published articles derived from the draft are affected.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded immediately after the action statement so the agent sees the risk before invoking.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an explicit destructiveHint, this is close to sufficient, but a delete operation would benefit from stating expected behavior on a nonexistent or already-deleted media_id and confirming that publish history is untouched. No output schema exists, so return values go unexplained.

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 100% with a single required media_id already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify what a media_id is, where to obtain it, or whether it must come from wechat_create_draft or wechat_list_drafts.

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 pairs a specific verb (删除) with a specific resource (指定草稿), so an agent can immediately tell it removes a single draft rather than listing or publishing one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from wechat_delete_material or note that draft deletion differs from deleting published content, leaving sibling differentiation to the tool name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for removing an unwanted draft rather than wechat_update_draft or wechat_delete_material. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as whether the draft must be unpublished first.

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