delete_asset_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that this is a delete operation (via the name and the '删除' verb) and specifies required fields, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. The absence of such context for a destructive operation is a notable gap.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the endpoint, the action, and the required fields with no filler. The essential requirement (entity fields) is front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Every word earns its place.

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 parameter-light delete operation, the description covers the endpoint and mandatory payload. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits response behavior, error conditions, permission requirements, and any cascading effects. The core invocation is documented, but an agent lacks full situational awareness for a destructive call.

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?

The schema only describes entity as an object containing the primary key assetHistoryId. The description adds critical information: entity must carry both assetHistoryId and userId, which is not present in the schema's parameter description. Since the nested object has additionalProperties allowed, the description meaningfully narrows the acceptable payload and prevents incorrect invocations.

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 begins with '删除资产变动记录' (delete asset change record), a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. It also states the exact HTTP endpoint, which helps distinguish this from other delete_* siblings like delete_asset or delete_bill. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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: whenever an asset history record needs to be deleted, with the entity containing the primary key and userId. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the resource name. This is adequate but lacks the exclusion or alternative routing that would warrant a 4.

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