delete_meet_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It hints at risk ('谨慎操作') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated reservations, required permissions, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase with a caution note. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a brief warning. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the tool's destructive nature and lack of other documentation.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what '删除预约窗口' entails operationally, what the response looks like, error scenarios, or system impact. The caution note is a start but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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%, with the single parameter 'meet_id' fully documented in the schema as '预约窗口的数据库ID（_id字段）'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 '删除预约窗口（谨慎操作）' clearly states the verb ('删除' - delete) and resource ('预约窗口' - meet window), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_reservation by specifying the target is the window itself, not individual reservations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_meet_window or other deletion tools beyond the resource name.

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 minimal guidance with '谨慎操作' (cautious operation), hinting at potential consequences, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or prerequisites. It doesn't clarify when to use this versus delete_reservation tools or what conditions must be met before deletion, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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