删除自选组合

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying that the action affects the current user's follow group and explicitly requires an authenticated session. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences contain all essential information: the action, the target resource, the scope, and the auth requirement. No filler or repetition; the most important information 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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, annotations, and a clear description, nothing necessary is missing. The description sufficiently explains what is deleted and under what conditions, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%; cube_symbol is fully described with type, constraints, and an example. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('取消关注' / remove from follow group) and names the resource ('雪球组合（cube）') and scope ('当前用户的关注分组'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_watchlist_stock and remove_watchlist_fund, and the action is 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 makes the use case clear: removing a cube from the current user's follow list. It states a prerequisite (valid login) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. However, the sibling names make the distinctions obvious, so no significant confusion is likely.

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