DeleteDIJob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated resources. It also doesn't mention error conditions or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or verbosity are present.

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?

Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens after deletion, whether confirmation is needed, error handling, or the response structure. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use of this tool in context.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in Chinese. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '删除数据集成同步任务' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (data integration sync job) in Chinese, which translates to 'Delete data integration sync job'. This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like DeleteDIAlarmRule or DeleteDataServiceApi, which have similar delete operations on different resources.

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. There are multiple delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., DeleteDIAlarmRule, DeleteDataServiceApi), but the description doesn't clarify that this is specifically for DI jobs rather than other resources. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage information is provided.

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