delete_ddns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing the destructive nature of a delete operation. It gives no information about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects, leaving the agent unaware of the operation's impact.

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 very short but under-specified rather than concise. While it is a single sentence, it omits all operational details, making it more of a placeholder than an informative description.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description should at least state what a DDNS record is and that the operation removes it. The minimal phrase provides no context, leaving the tool's behavior entirely ambiguous.

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 parameter (record_id) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent cannot infer what record_id represents or how to obtain it, as the description adds no semantic value.

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 '删除 DDNS' is a direct translation of the tool name 'delete_ddns', essentially restating the name without adding specificity. It fails to clarify what DDNS refers to or distinguish it from similar delete tools, making it a tautology.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_acl_rule or delete_static_route. The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as whether a DDNS configuration must exist, or any exclusions.

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