删除 QQ 机器人群配置

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags the operation as high-risk ('高风险') and explains the concrete post-deletion effect: '使用该编码的 option 将失效'. It also describes the unified response envelope. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and error behavior, but the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 with the high-risk warning. It efficiently includes the HTTP method, endpoint, required parameter, and response format. The response information is justified because there is no output schema, making this content useful rather than redundant.

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 single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: parameter, risk level, consequence of deletion, and response shape. It lacks explicit usage conditions and error-case detail, but these are relatively minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the schema already documents id as '配置编号'. The description repeats this as 'id(配置编号,必填)' without adding new meaning, such as format, range, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action: '删除 QQ 机器人群配置' (delete QQ bot group configuration), and marks it as high-risk. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_qqbot_add, open_qqbot_edit, open_qqbot_list, and open_qqbot_unbind.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_qqbot_edit or open_qqbot_unbind. The description warns about high risk and the consequence of deletion, but does not state conditions for use, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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