delete_essence_msg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive mutation (removing an essence marker) but discloses nothing about required permissions, reversibility, failure modes, or scope limits. Tagging it a "NapCat 扩展接口" is the only added context.

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?

Very terse and front-loaded, but the trailing ":param message_id" line duplicates the schema description verbatim, adding no information. Efficient in size but slightly wasteful in content.

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 mutating single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, group context, and failure behavior that an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the schema's own parameter text ("要移出精华的消息 ID") with no added format, range, or sourcing guidance, so it does not exceed the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("移出...群精华消息" = remove a group essence message), which is distinct from its natural siblings set_essence_msg (add) and get_essence_msg_list (read). It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. group-admin rights, whether the message must already be an essence message), and no mention of alternatives like set_essence_msg. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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