Delete a published WeChat article by article ID, with mandatory confirmation to prevent accidental loss. Use the optional index to target a specific article within a multi-article publication.
删除已发表文章或其中一篇；必须显式确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| article_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explicitly requiring confirmation ('必须显式确认'), indicating the operation will not proceed without explicit user consent. It also adds the nuance that either the whole publication or a single contained article can be deleted. 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 that conveys the core action and the key behavioral constraint with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately scannable.
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?
Annotations and output schema cover the destructive nature and result shape, and the description adds the essential confirmation requirement. However, the meaning of '或其中一篇' and the interaction between index and confirm parameters remain vague, so the context is not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage.
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 for missing parameter documentation. It hints at the index parameter with '其中一篇' and at confirm with '必须显式确认', but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain valid values and defaults.
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 clearly identifies the operation as deleting a published article and specifies the target resource ('已发表文章'), which distinguishes it from delete_draft. The '或其中一篇' clause adds scope nuance but could be interpreted ambiguously. Overall, the verb+resource combination is specific.
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 when to use the tool—for published articles rather than drafts—and explicitly states that explicit confirmation is required, which guides the agent to set the confirm parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving sibling differentiation mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.