删除 QQ 机器人配置

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly flags the operation as high-risk and explains that deleting the config will cause options using its code to become invalid—useful impact disclosure. It omits any mention of permissions, irreversibility confirmation, or rate limits, but the core destructive effect is communicated.

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-loads the HTTP method/endpoint and risk warning. It includes some boilerplate about the unified response format (code/msg/data) which adds minor noise, but overall every part is reasonably tight.

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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, required parameter, risk, and side effect. However, it does not explain the response data structure (data is not described beyond '业务数据') or offer guidance on safely confirming deletion, leaving some gaps for a high-risk mutation.

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 single required parameter 'id' is already fully documented as '配置编号' in the schema. The description repeats this ('id(配置编号,必填)') without adding format, range, or lookup guidance, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (QQ 机器人配置), and explicitly names the consequence (options using this code will fail). It clearly distinguishes the destructive operation from siblings like open_qqbot_edit or open_qqbot_add.

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 marking it high-risk and describing the consequence, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this versus alternatives such as open_qqbot_unbind or open_qqbot_custom_bot_delete. Usage context is only implied.

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