删除群组

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 warns that the operation is high-risk and states the success message, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, what side effects occur (e.g., members removed, data lost), permission requirements, or reversibility. The '高风险' label is generic and lacks specifics.

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, immediately stating the endpoint and risk level, followed by the parameter and unified response format. Every segment adds necessary information with no filler, though it could be slightly better structured to separate metadata from usage instructions.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, required parameter, and response shape. However, it lacks critical side-effect information for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility and downstream impacts, which leaves the description only marginally adequate.

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 description merely restates the single parameter 'topicId(群组编号,必填)' without adding new semantics. It does not explain value ranges, additional format requirements, or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb and resource: '删除群组' (delete group), and includes the endpoint and a high-risk marker. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_topic_exit (exit group) and open_topic_user_delete (delete user from group), because the target is the group itself.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_topic_exit or open_topic_edit. The only usage-related hint is the vague '高风险' warning; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this over other topic operations.

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