feishu_delete_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool's unreliability ('可能无法使用' - may not work), destructive nature ('删除操作不可恢复' - deletion is irreversible in the confirm parameter description), and provides a workaround. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the purpose, second provides critical warnings and alternatives. The structure is front-loaded with core functionality followed by essential caveats, making every sentence earn its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, limitations, and alternatives. However, it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The high schema coverage helps compensate.

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 baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema's confirm parameter description includes critical safety context ('删除操作不可恢复' - deletion is irreversible), which aligns with the tool's purpose. This elevates the score slightly as it reinforces behavioral transparency.

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 specific action ('删除' meaning delete) and resource ('飞书文档中的指定 Block' meaning specified block in Feishu document), distinguishing it from sibling tools like feishu_update_content or feishu_list_blocks. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: warns that the Feishu API may not support direct block deletion and suggests an alternative approach ('建议通过编辑将块内容清空作为替代方案' - suggests clearing block content via editing as an alternative). This directly addresses when to avoid this tool versus using editing alternatives.

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