DeleteAlertRule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除' (delete) implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety information.

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, efficient phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential 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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, authorization requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes success. The context demands more disclosure for safe operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'Id' documented as '自定义规则的ID' (ID of the custom rule). The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 '删除自定义规则' (Delete custom rule) clearly states the verb ('删除' - delete) and resource ('自定义规则' - custom rule), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like DeleteDataQualityRule or DeleteDIAlarmRule, but the specificity of 'custom rule' suggests a particular type of rule, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling deletion tools (DeleteDataQualityRule, DeleteDIAlarmRule, etc.), there's no indication of what makes an 'alert rule' different or when this specific deletion tool is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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