ilm_policy_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '删除' (delete) which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on associated resources, or returns confirmation data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief with two lines: one stating the purpose and one listing the parameter. It's front-loaded but could be more structured; the parameter documentation is basic and doesn't add much beyond what's inferable. It avoids waste but lacks depth.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by documenting 'policy_id: 策略 ID' (policy ID: policy ID), though this is minimal. Since there are zero parameters with schema descriptions, the baseline would be 4, and the description meets this by at least naming the parameter, even if it doesn't provide format or sourcing details.

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 '删除 ILM 策略' (delete ILM policy), which clearly indicates the verb (delete) and resource (ILM policy). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'slm_policy_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deletion tool versus alternatives.

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 like 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'slm_policy_delete'. The description only states what it does without context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other deletion methods.

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