delete_reservation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is permanent ('永久删除') and caution is needed, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to associated data, or if the deletion is reversible. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 very concise—a single phrase in Chinese that states the action and includes a cautionary note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured if it explicitly separated the warning. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools that might offer alternative deletion methods.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'record_id' clearly documented as '数据库记录ID（_id字段，不是JOIN_ID）' meaning 'database record ID (_id field, not JOIN_ID)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('永久删除' meaning 'permanently delete') and the resource ('预约记录' meaning 'reservation record'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_reservation_by_mobile or delete_reservation_by_name, which target the same resource but use different identifiers.

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 includes a cautionary note ('谨慎操作' meaning 'use with caution'), which implies this is a sensitive operation, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_reservation_by_mobile or delete_reservation_by_name. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific scenarios for selection.

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