delete_draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description meaningfully adds that explicit confirmation is required. This warns the agent that calling with only a media_id is insufficient and that the confirm flag must be set. It goes beyond annotations by explaining a non-obvious prerequisite for the destructive action.

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 extremely concise: two short phrases, with the action front-loaded and the crucial confirmation requirement stated immediately. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a tool with simple parameters and an output schema, the description plus annotations cover the core destructive nature and the confirmation gate. However, it does not mention irreversibility or explicitly tie the confirmation instruction to the 'confirm' parameter. This leaves a moderate gap in an otherwise straightforward delete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the confirm parameter via '必须显式确认' and leaves media_id entirely unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not explicitly map media_id to the draft identifier, nor clarify the confirm flag's role beyond general confirmation.

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 '删除草稿' clearly states a specific verb (delete) and resource (draft), leaving no ambiguity about the operation. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_published_article or delete_material by targeting a different resource. The confirmation requirement adds a distinctive behavioral marker.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for using delete_draft versus other delete tools. However, the action is implied by the name and resource, and the instruction '必须显式确认' provides a critical usage rule. This is basic implied guidance rather than active routing.

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