DeleteResource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects dependent resources, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core 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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states what it does at a high level without covering behavioral aspects (permanence, dependencies, permissions) or response format. Given the complexity and risk of a delete operation, the description is incomplete and inadequate.

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 both parameters (ProjectId and Id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 ('数据开发文件资源' meaning data development file resource), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like DeleteAlertRule, DeleteDataQualityRule, etc.), which would require 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. There are multiple delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., DeleteResource, DeleteNode, DeleteFunction), but no indication of which resource types each handles or any prerequisites for deletion.

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