maimemo_delete_interpretation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that – no warning about permanence, no note about the confirm requirement's authorization implications, no error behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes no additional behavioral context.

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?

The description is two words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness – it lacks the substance a destructive tool needs. Brevity here is a deficit, not a virtue.

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 destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what gets deleted and any irreversibility. Annotations cover the safety hints, but the description leaves the operation's scope and consequences entirely unstated.

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%, so both parameters (id, confirm) are fully documented in the schema including the const:true authorization requirement. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 '删除释义' is essentially the tool name (delete interpretation) restated in Chinese, with no scope, target, or elaboration. An agent knows the verb and resource only because the name already says it. This is tautological rather than genuinely clarifying.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned. Siblings such as maimemo_update_interpretation and maimemo_delete_phrase exist, but nothing routes the agent between them. Nothing in the description helps decide when this tool applies.

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