maimemo_delete_phrase

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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note that deletion is permanent, no mention that the confirm flag is a required authorization, no side-effect 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 a single terse fragment with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since no useful context is conveyed.

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 an irreversible destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description omits any statement of irreversibility or authorization semantics. Although the parameters are fully documented in the schema and safety flags live in annotations, the description should at minimum signal that this permanently removes a phrase.

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%: 'id' is documented as the phrase id and 'confirm' is documented as the required write authorization. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '删除例句' states a clear verb (删除) and resource (例句), but it essentially translates the tool name rather than adding distinct meaning. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling delete operations (delete_interpretation, delete_note, delete_notepad), so an agent gains little beyond the name itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about irreversibility. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the destructive annotation.

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