bilibili_watch_later_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description only restates that it is a write, adding nothing about side effects, partial-failure behavior, or the fact that removal is irreversible. Since annotations do the work here, a low score reflects the description's lack of added context rather than a contradiction.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the write tag followed by action and format. No filler, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral context is missing.

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 write tool with no output schema, the definition leaves out what happens on partial success, whether missing aids error out, and any confirmation semantics (that lives only in the schema's confirm field). Enough to call it correctly, but thin for a destructive operation.

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 50%: 'confirm' is documented in the schema, while 'avids' has only a pattern. The description usefully explains in words that avids is a comma-separated list, which is the undocumented parameter, but it adds nothing about limits, invalid-id handling, or the confirm gate. Reasonable compensation, hence a middling score.

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 concrete verb (remove/移除) and resource (稍后再看/watch later) plus the input format (comma-separated aids), which distinguishes it from bilibili_watch_later_add and bilibili_my_watch_later. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternatives, but the purpose itself is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus bilibili_watch_later_add or bilibili_my_watch_later, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted. The [互动写入] prefix implies a write operation but gives no conditions for use.

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