delete_child_categoryDelete a secondary category from a bookkeeping ledger by submitting its categoryId and the user's userId.
删除二级分类（POST /childCategory/deleteChildCategory）。entity 需携带主键字段（categoryId）与 userId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | 二级分类对象（含主键 categoryId） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that entity must carry both categoryId and userId, and identifies the endpoint. However, it does not disclose deletion consequences, reversibility, auth requirements, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose, then adds the endpoint and required fields. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 description provides the essential invocation requirements: what to delete, the endpoint, and the required entity fields. With no output schema, it reasonably omits return details, though it could further clarify side effects or failure modes.
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 coverage is 100% at the entity-object level, but the schema only mentions categoryId. The description adds critical param semantics by requiring userId in addition to the primary key, which the agent could not infer from the schema alone.
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 ('删除二级分类' / delete second-level category) and the exact resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_parent_category. It also includes the HTTP endpoint for additional precision.
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 makes clear this tool is for deleting a second-level category, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.