delete_bill_fileDelete a bill attachment by providing its fileId and userId. This action removes the file from the bookkeeping record, helping keep billing data accurate.
删除账单附件（POST /billFile/deleteBillFile）。entity 需携带主键字段（fileId）与 userId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | 账单附件对象（含主键 fileId） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a destructive delete operation, specifies the HTTP method, and requires userId context, but it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, followed immediately by the essential parameter requirement.
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 one-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation requirements: the action, the endpoint, and the mandatory fileId/userId fields. It does not describe the response or error cases, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 the entity object as containing the primary key fileId, while the description adds the crucial requirement that entity must also carry userId. This extra guidance goes beyond the schema and compensates for the lack of nested property definitions.
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 operation explicitly with a specific verb and resource: '删除账单附件' (delete bill attachment), and reinforces it with the exact POST endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_bill or delete_asset.
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 by stating it deletes a bill attachment and names the required entity fields, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as delete_bill, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.