DeleteDataServiceApi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single phrase '删除数据服务API' only indicates a destructive delete operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to dependent resources, rate limits, or expected response format. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While technically concise with just three Chinese characters, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary context for a destructive operation. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to earn its place by being insufficiently informative for the tool's complexity.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets deleted, under what conditions, what the consequences are, or what the agent can expect as a result. The combination of a mutation operation with zero behavioral transparency and no output information creates significant risk for the agent.

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%, with all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema 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 '删除数据服务API' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'DeleteDataServiceApi' in Chinese. It provides the verb 'delete' and resource 'data service API' but lacks specificity about what deletion entails or any differentiation from sibling tools like 'DeleteDataSource' or 'DeleteDataQualityRule'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but fails to distinguish this specific deletion operation from others.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. With sibling tools like 'AbolishDataServiceApi' and 'DeleteDataServiceApi' both present, the lack of differentiation is particularly problematic. The agent receives no help in choosing between these similar-sounding operations.

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