删除投递记录

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It never says whether the delete is permanent or soft, whether confirmation is needed, what permissions are required, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized for the operation, though there is essentially no structure to evaluate.

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, unannotated, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits irreversibility, error behavior on unknown ids, and authorization requirements. An agent can call it, but not with confidence about consequences.

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% and the schema only types id as a string. The phrase "按 id" does tell the agent that id is the record identifier used for deletion, adding some meaning beyond the schema, but gives no format, source, or validity details to compensate for the total coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb (删除) and resource (投递记录) scoped by id, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from application_add, application_list, and application_update. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or alternative named, and no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus application_update. The description only restates the operation.

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