删除采购

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: deletion cascades into linked todo items, which an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations. It still omits whether the delete is irreversible and how missing/invalid ids are handled.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, leading with the primary action and appending the cascade effect. Nothing to trim.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient; the cascade side effect is the key piece of context. Missing only irreversibility and return/error behavior.

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?

One required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it never says the id is a purchase record identifier, though that is inferable from the tool name. Adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete the purchase record) and adds a non-obvious secondary effect (cleanup of linked todos). That distinguishes it from purchase.update or purchase.list, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and resource — the description gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no guidance on alternatives such as closing/archiving instead of deleting.

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