删除永久素材

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the base safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is irreversible and deleting a material may invalidate draft covers that reference it – a side effect not captured by any structured field.

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 filler; the action is stated first and the risk warning immediately follows. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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, the description covers what matters most: the target, irreversibility, and downstream impact on draft covers. It could mention permission requirements or behavior when the material is in use, but is otherwise sufficient to call safely.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('素材 media_id'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format hints, sourcing guidance, or examples beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 ('删除指定永久素材'), making the target object unambiguous and implicitly distinct from sibling deletion tools like wechat_delete_draft. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but an agent can identify the operation from the resource noun alone.

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 implied by the destructive nature of the operation, and the irreversibility warning effectively signals 'only use when certain'. However, it never says how to obtain a media_id (e.g., via wechat_list_materials) or notes any preconditions before deletion, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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