DeleteFunction

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 mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects dependent resources, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it provides minimal contextual information beyond the basic action.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'data development function' means in this context, what the deletion consequences are, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and informed tool invocation, especially given the tool's destructive nature.

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 both parameters clearly documented: ProjectId (DataWorks workspace ID) and Id (UDF function unique identifier). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context about parameter usage.

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 '删除数据开发函数' (Delete data development function) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'DeleteFunction' in Chinese. It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (data development function) but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like DeleteNode, DeleteResource, or DeleteWorkflowDefinition that also delete different resources. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from similar deletion operations.

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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the function first), consequences of deletion, or when other deletion tools might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameter descriptions.

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