xoa_toan_bo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value for a destructive operation: it discloses the default limited scope and warns to consider carefully before expanding it. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether deletion is reversible, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, then the parameter effect, then the caution. No filler, though the caution sentence could be merged with the parameter sentence.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, parameter effect, and a warning. Return value is not described, but that is minor for a delete operation and no output schema exists to carry it.

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 0% and the single parameter (chi_cua_addon) is documented only by its name. The description compensates fully: default = addon collection only, False = clean the whole scene. This gives the agent the exact effect of both boolean values.

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 states a specific verb+resource: deleting the objects this addon itself created. It scopes 'what gets deleted' clearly, which is genuinely more informative than the name xoa_toan_bo ('delete all') alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling xoa_doi_tuong.

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?

It explains the default scope (only the addon's own collection) and the condition under which broader deletion occurs (chi_cua_addon=False), plus a caution. However it never names an alternative tool or states when a user should prefer xoa_doi_tuong for targeted deletion, so routing guidance is only implied.

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