item_delete

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 explicitly states '写操作' (write operation) and mentions rate limiting and risk control protections, which adds useful context about side effects and constraints. However, it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or what consequences occur beyond the operation itself.

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 a single, compact phrase that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by a brief note on operation type and protections. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 tool's delete/delist operation and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial contextual information. It does not mention whether the delete is soft (delist) or hard (permanent), what happens to associated data, or any side effects. It also provides no usage alternatives, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 one required parameter, item_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or any special requirements. Although item_id is self-explanatory, the description provides no additional value beyond the schema, and the low coverage means the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 '下架/删除' (delist/delete) and the resource '商品' (item/product), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like item_get, item_list, and item_publish by indicating it's a delete/delist operation, which is unique among the given siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like item_get or item_publish would be more appropriate. The only hint is that it's a write operation, but that's not explicit usage guidance.

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