Dpanel Env Delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key traits: the operation is destructive and a confirmation flag is required. It does not state what exactly is deleted (e.g., containers, volumes, configuration), whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Useful but incomplete safety 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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence with no filler. The destructive nature and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, so the most important risk information is seen immediately.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations, the description provides only minimal safety context (destructive + confirm gate) and omits consequences, scope of deletion, and prerequisites. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Adequate but thin for the risk level of the operation.

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% and there are two parameters. The description adds critical semantic value for 'confirm' by stating it must be true, which is essential given its default of false. However, 'env_name' is not described at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('删除 Docker 环境'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like dpanel_env_create, dpanel_env_list, and dpanel_env_switch. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without needing to infer from the name alone.

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 gives an important invocation condition (requires confirm=true) and labels the action as destructive, which helps an agent decide whether to proceed. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites beyond the confirmation flag. Usage is implied by the resource name, not explained.

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