boss_preset_remove

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It discloses role/platform gating, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether the preset is recoverable, or what happens if the name does not exist.

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?

One front-loaded clause states the action, followed by a compact bracketed constraint block; there is no filler. The bracketed availability notation is terse but not explained, which slightly reduces readability for an agent unfamiliar with the convention.

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, no-output tool this covers the essentials: action and applicability constraints. However, for a delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the omission of irreversibility and failure-mode behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description ("预设名称") already covers it at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, case-sensitivity, or lookup semantics for the name beyond the schema.

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?

"删除指定搜索预设" gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (search preset), which clearly separates it from siblings like boss_preset_add and boss_preset_list. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: delete a preset by name. There is no guidance on when to remove versus rename or list first, and no mention of confirming the preset exists before deleting. The bracketed availability clause does add a real precondition (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin), which is worth credit but is not alternative-selection guidance.

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