doc_delete_by_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a delete operation (destructive), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletions are permanent, performance impact, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The example shows a date-range deletion, but no broader behavioral context is given.

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 reasonably concise with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. However, the structure could be improved - the purpose statement is brief but the parameter explanations are minimal. The example is helpful but doesn't replace proper behavioral context. No wasted sentences, but could be more informative.

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 destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers parameters but lacks critical information about the delete operation's behavior, consequences, error handling, and output format. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing safety and operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations: 'index: 索引名称' (index name), 'query: 查询条件' (query conditions), 'refresh: 是否刷新' (whether to refresh), 'conflicts: 冲突处理 abort/proceed' (conflict handling). The example demonstrates query syntax. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '按查询删除文档' (delete documents by query). It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (documents) with a method (by query). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doc_delete' (which likely deletes by ID) or 'doc_update_by_query' (which updates rather than deletes).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'doc_delete' (for single documents) or 'doc_update_by_query' (for updates). There's no discussion of prerequisites, performance implications, or use cases.

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