delete_reservation_by_mobile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have side effects, or return confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and identifier, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the operation and key parameter.

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 doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, whether deletions are reversible, or any error handling. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 parameter 'mobile' fully documented in the schema (type, description, pattern). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('删除' - delete) and resource ('预约记录' - reservation records) with a specific identifier ('根据手机号' - by mobile number). It distinguishes from the generic 'delete_reservation' sibling but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_reservation_by_name', which uses a different identifier. The purpose is specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_reservation' or 'delete_reservation_by_name'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context about what happens if the mobile number doesn't exist. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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