WeChat_del_draft

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

The description discloses the basic destructive action (delete) and lists input/output fields. It adds useful context that media_id refers to the draft_media_id from create_draft. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly warn about irreversibility, authorization requirements beyond access_token, or potential side effects, leaving some burden unmet.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by metadata and parameter descriptions. Every piece of information earns its place, and the most important point (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the essential action, input parameters, and output fields. The output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The main gap is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to call it.

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 input schema is essentially a single 'args' string with no sub-properties, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by listing access_token and media_id and explaining their meanings, including the fact that media_id is the draft_media_id from WeChat_create_draft. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of specifying the exact JSON format inside args.

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 clearly states the action: '删除微信公众号草稿' (Delete WeChat Official Account draft). This is a specific verb+resource combination that directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, publish, or get_access_token.

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?

The description implies usage context by noting that media_id is the draft_media_id returned by WeChat_create_draft, indicating a typical create-then-delete workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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