delete_conditional_menu

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

Annotations already cover destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the description's added value is the guardrail that deletion requires explicit confirmation ('必须显式确认'). This is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations and schema directly provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 one tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the delete action and resource, followed by the mandatory confirmation condition. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 that this is a simple two-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description conveys the core scope and the important confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly connect the confirmation requirement to the confirm parameter or clarify how menu_id is used, leaving the definition minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only indirectly hints at the confirm parameter via '必须显式确认', but it does not explain menu_id's meaning or format, nor does it explicitly state that confirm must be set to true. The agent is mostly left with schema titles.

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/delete) and a specific resource (个性化菜单/conditional menu), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_menu. It also communicates a required confirmation step, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context that this deletes a conditional menu and that explicit confirmation is required, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like delete_menu. The usage boundary is implied through the resource name and sibling list rather than stated.

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