删除好友

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does label the operation '高风险' (high risk), exposing its destructive nature, and it documents the unified response format (code/msg/data). It does not go further to state irreversibility, authorization requirements, or consequences beyond deleting the friendship, so it 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 compact and front-loaded: endpoint, risk label, required parameter, and response contract each in logical order. It avoids fluff, though the response-format sentence is generic and could be considered unnecessary; overall this is efficient and well structured.

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?

This is a low-complexity, two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by defining the unified response contract and flags high risk. It could mention irreversibility or require additional confirmation, but for a simple delete-friend call the provided context is sufficient to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both friendId and appId. The description adds the '必填' (required) marker and says friendId comes from the friend list, which repeats the schema's meaning rather than adding new semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter load.

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 uses a specific verb and resource combination: '删除好友' (delete friend), preceded by the exact endpoint. Even without opening the schema, an agent can distinguish it from sibling friend-management tools like open_friend_list, open_friend_edit_remark, and open_friend_add_blacklist. The endpoint and risk label add no ambiguity.

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 by requiring friendId '来自好友列表 friendId', which points the agent to fetch a valid friendId from a friend-list source first. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related friend operations or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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