delete_essence_msg

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. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether the removal is reversible, or any error conditions, despite being a mutation of group state.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and concise, but the appended ':param message_id: 要移出精华的消息 ID' is a docstring artifact that repeats the schema and adds no value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the purpose is conveyed adequately. However, with no annotations and a mutating action, missing permission and reversibility details leave it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. The description's ':param message_id' line merely duplicates the schema text verbatim, adding no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 移出 (remove) the specified 群精华消息 (group essence message). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names its natural counterpart set_essence_msg, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 use this versus alternatives. It does not mention set_essence_msg (the opposite operation) or get_essence_msg_list, nor any prerequisite such as needing the message to already be an essence message.

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