DeleteDIAlarmRule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '删除' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to associated resources. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what the deletion entails, success/failure responses, or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (DIAlarmRuleId, Id, DIJobId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('删除' meaning 'delete') and the resource ('数据集成同步任务告警规则' meaning 'data integration sync task alarm rule'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'DeleteAlertRule' or 'DeleteDataQualityRule', which might handle different types of alarm rules.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to use it over other delete tools like 'DeleteAlertRule' or what context requires this specific alarm rule deletion.

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