delete_order_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'delete orders' without mentioning irreversibility, whether multiple orders are affected, permission requirements, or any side effects. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively conveying the core action. It does not waste words, though it could be expanded with important details without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the deleted orders, whether it deletes all orders matching the name or just one, or any error conditions. The output schema may cover return values, but the description offers no behavioral or safety context. It is minimally viable but lacks necessary depth.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does add some semantic meaning: 'by name' clarifies that the 'name' parameter is the matching criterion for deletion. However, it does not specify matching behavior (exact, partial, case-insensitive) or whether it deletes all matches, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 '根據姓名刪除訂單。' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (orders) with a selection criterion (by name). It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_drink_order, so it lacks the sibling distinction required for a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_order_by_name or delete_drink_order. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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