index_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It warns of danger but doesn't specify what makes it dangerous (e.g., irreversible data loss, impact on queries, permissions required). It mentions wildcard support but doesn't explain behavioral implications like bulk deletion. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the operation's effects.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, warning, and parameter explanation in three lines. No redundant information is present. However, the warning could be more integrated rather than parenthetical, and the parameter section uses minimal formatting.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions needed, irreversible consequences, error conditions, or what happens to associated data/aliases. The warning is vague, and without structured safety hints, the agent cannot fully assess risks.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'index' by explaining it accepts wildcard patterns like 'logs-*', which isn't evident from the schema alone (0% coverage). This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it could elaborate on pattern matching behavior or constraints.

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 action ('删除索引' - delete index) and identifies the resource ('索引' - index). It distinguishes from siblings like index_create or index_close by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like doc_delete or snapshot_delete beyond the index focus.

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 provides minimal guidance with only a warning label ('危险操作' - dangerous operation). It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_close for temporary deactivation, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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