forget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it never states whether the retraction is permanent, whether it fails if the whisper is already gone, whether any error is returned for an unknown id, or whether it is idempotent. '收回' implies a mutation, but the destructive nature is only implied by the poetic phrasing, not disclosed.

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?

Two very short sentences with the action front-loaded, which is good. However, the second sentence is atmospheric rather than informative and does not contribute anything an agent can act on, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient packing.

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?

This is a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and no documentation on side effects, confirmability, or failure modes; the existence of an output schema covers the return shape only. For a destructive single-parameter operation, the description should say more about what happens to the whisper and whether the action can be undone.

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%, so the schema alone gives only the name 'whisper_id' with a generic string type. The description partially compensates by indicating the parameter identifies the whisper whose words are being taken back, but it adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that inference.

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 verb '收回' (retract/take back) plus the object '一条低语' (a whisper) states a specific action on a specific resource, and the required whisper_id confirms it targets one existing whisper. This is distinguishable from siblings like whisper/listen, though the metaphorical vocabulary ('低语', '树洞') means an agent must map the term to the API's resource rather than reading an explicit 'delete'.

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?

Nothing says when to call this versus the siblings whisper, listen, or rest, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as owning the whisper. The clause '树洞会放人收回说过的话' explains motivation, not selection criteria.

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