slm_policy_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a policy but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects existing snapshots, or has side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two lines: one stating the purpose and one listing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly, but it's still efficient with zero waste.

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 complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations. For a tool that permanently removes resources, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

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 minimal parameter semantics by stating 'name: 策略名称' (name: policy name), which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but incomplete context—it doesn't specify format (e.g., exact policy name) or constraints. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here one parameter is partially documented, warranting a 3.

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' meaning delete) and the resource ('快照生命周期策略' meaning snapshot lifecycle policy). It distinguishes from siblings like 'slm_policy_create', 'slm_policy_get', and 'slm_policy_explain' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ilm_policy_delete' which handles a different type of lifecycle policy.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose this over other deletion tools like 'snapshot_delete'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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