delete_mass_message

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description is not responsible for that fact. It adds the key behavioral requirement that explicit confirmation is mandatory, which goes beyond the annotations and is critical for correct invocation. It does not mention irreversibility or side effects, but the most important extra behavior is 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 extremely compact: a single sentence with the action first and the critical prerequisite second. There is no filler, repetition, or vague wording, and the most important operational constraint is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, and annotations cover the destructive nature of the operation. The description adds the necessary confirmation requirement, but it omits guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling deletion tools and does not explain the optional article_idx parameter. For a destructive tool with three parameters, this leaves some gap in completeness.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only clarifies confirm ('必须显式确认'), while msg_id and article_idx remain unexplained. In particular, article_idx is ambiguous and could easily be misinterpreted, so the description does not fully carry the parameter-semantics burden.

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 the action clearly: '删除群发消息' (delete mass message), using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like delete_draft or delete_published_article because it uniquely targets mass messages. The added confirmation requirement does not obscure the core purpose.

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 explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_draft or delete_published_article. The only usage-related detail is the confirmation prerequisite, which is about how to invoke the tool, not about selecting it over siblings. There are no exclusions or conditional recommendations.

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