Delete Ddns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no statement of irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on related DDNS state, or confirmation behavior. The only implicit signal is that deletion is destructive, which the agent gets from the verb alone.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single phrase that adds nothing beyond the tool name. Brevity here is not earning its place because no useful information was included to begin with.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive operation with no annotations and an undocumented required id parameter the definition is materially incomplete. The agent cannot tell preconditions, side effects, or error cases from this text.

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% for the single parameter record_id, and the description adds no meaning about it (where the id comes from, expected format, or how to obtain it from get_ddns_config/list results). With a non-trivial required parameter fully undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"删除 DDNS" names a clear verb (delete) and resource (DDNS) and is unambiguous against siblings like add_ddns, get_ddns_config and get_ddns_log. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no scope or differentiation detail (e.g. whether it removes a rule versus a cached registration), so it lands at minimum-viable clarity rather than a strong 4-5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus add_ddns or get_ddns_config, no prerequisites (does the DDNS entry need to exist / be disabled first?), and no mention of what the caller must supply beyond the id. A mutation tool with zero usage context leaves the agent to infer everything.

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