删除记忆

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that the action is permanent and requires explicit user confirmation first, which covers the most critical safety aspects of a destructive operation. It does not detail side effects or error behavior, but for a simple one-parameter delete this is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and safety requirement. The bilingual repetition is redundant but still compact, and the key usage guidance is easy to parse. It earns a high score for efficiency, with minor points off for duplicated content.

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?

Given the low complexity of a one-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the critical confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it omits details about response or failure handling.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, id, so the description must compensate. It provides context by identifying the target as a '预设/preset', allowing the agent to infer that id identifies the preset to delete. However, it does not explicitly document the id parameter or any constraints, so compensation is only partial.

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 a specific action ('永久删除/Permanently delete') on a specific resource ('预设/preset') and distinguishes itself from mere updates by emphasizing permanence. It also implicitly separates this tool from update_memory by mentioning disabling as an alternative.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: permanent deletion only after user confirmation, and temporary disuse should be handled by setting status=disabled. This is actionable and points toward the alternative behavior without ambiguity.

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