WeChat_del_material

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists inputs/outputs. It does not disclose that deletion is irrevocable, does not mention required permissions or side effects, and does not explain error conditions beyond the output field names. The output fields (success, error, errcode, errmsg) provide minimal signal but not substantive behavior.

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 brief and organized with clear sections (description, metadata, parameter notes). It front-loads the purpose. The metadata section repeats output fields that might already exist in an output schema, but it remains compact.

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?

The tool has a dangerously simplistic schema (args string) that conflicts with the documented access_token/media_id inputs. The description does not clarify how to pass the parameters, nor does it warn about the irreversible nature of deletion. It also lacks guidance on obtaining access_token. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 description defines access_token as '接口凭证' (API credential) and media_id as the ID returned by WeChat_create_draft, providing meaning beyond the schema, which only has a generic 'args' string. However, it does not explain how these parameters map to the schema's 'args' field, leaving ambiguity in invocation.

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 opens with '删除微信公众号永久素材' (Delete WeChat Official Account permanent material), which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like WeChat_del_draft (delete draft) and WeChat_create_draft.

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 parameter description for media_id states it is the image_media_id returned by WeChat_create_draft, implying a workflow connection. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like WeChat_del_draft, nor any exclusions.

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