删除一条优势

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '按 id 删除' implies a destructive mutation, yet nothing is said about irreversibility, whether confirmation is needed, permission requirements, or what happens if the id is invalid. For a delete tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 very short sentences with the action front-loaded and the id source immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though it is brief enough that it omits context rather than being an exemplary compact definition.

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?

A one-parameter destructive tool needs little param guidance and no output schema, and the id source is covered. However, with no annotations and no statement of consequence or reversibility for a delete operation, the safety-relevant context is incomplete.

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 100% and the schema already documents the id parameter with an example format. The description adds only the practical pointer that the id comes from strength_list; it does not extend the parameter's meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (删除) and resource (已沉淀的优势) plus the keying mechanism (按 id), which cleanly separates it from strength_save, strength_list and strength_mine. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 points to strength_list as the way to obtain the id, which is a useful routing hint, but it gives no conditions for when deletion is appropriate versus other actions and no caveats. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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