delete_material

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds the important behavioral requirement that explicit confirmation is necessary. This goes beyond the structured annotations by warning that the delete action is gated on a confirm signal. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the core purpose and the key usage requirement are stated efficiently. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple delete operation, the combination of the description, input schema, and annotations covers the essential invocation details: target resource, required media_id, confirmation requirement, and destructive nature. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. A minor gap is that the description does not explicitly state that confirm must be set to true, though '必须显式确认' strongly implies it.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's purpose ('必须显式确认'), but media_id semantics are left to the parameter name and title. The description partially compensates but does not fully document parameter behavior or the exact confirm=true requirement.

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 action and resource: '删除永久素材' (delete permanent material). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_draft, delete_published_article, or delete_tag, which target different resource types. The added confirmation requirement also helps identify the tool's unique behavior.

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 implies usage for deleting permanent materials, which is enough to infer the primary context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives for similar resources. The confirmation requirement is the only explicit usage guidance.

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