Dpanel Notice Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two most important traits — destructiveness and the confirm=true gate — which is valuable. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether permissions are needed, or what happens to already-read notices.

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 short parenthetical sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the destructive warning immediately attached. No filler. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a destructive operation, the description is thin — it omits irreversibility, error/allowed conditions, and how 'id' is obtained. Adequate as a minimum but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's required value (confirm=true) for a destructive call, which is the highest-value semantic detail. The required 'id' parameter is left unexplained (no format, source, or where to obtain it).

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+resource (删除通知 / delete notification), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other notice tools (dpanel_notice_list, dpanel_notice_unread), though the verb 'delete' makes the intent unambiguous.

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 provides a precondition (confirm=true required) and flags the destructive nature, which implicitly signals 'only use when you really mean to remove a notice.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives.

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