remove_knowledge_base

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says to call when deleting a knowledge base, which merely restates the tool's name and does not reveal any side effects, such as whether deletion is permanent, cascades to associated documents, or requires specific permissions. This is essentially no behavioral transparency beyond the obvious destructive implication of the name.

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 a single short sentence, so it is not verbose. However, it is under-specified: it reads as a usage directive ('Call when deleting a knowledge base') rather than an informative description, lacking structure or additional contextual detail. It is concise but does not earn its place as a high-quality description.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide context. It fails to explain important aspects such as the effect on associated documents (since sibling tools like delete_kb_documents exist), whether the action is reversible, or what happens after deletion. This leaves clear gaps for a simple destructive operation.

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% for the single parameter knowledgebase_id, which is documented as '要删除的知识库 ID' (the ID of the knowledge base to delete). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool is for deleting a knowledge base ('删除知识库时调用' – 'Call when deleting a knowledge base'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_knowledge_base and get_kb_documents. However, it lacks any additional scope detail, so it's clear but not fully rich.

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 an implied usage context: use when deleting a knowledge base. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, such as delete_kb_documents for removing individual documents. This is a clear trigger condition but lacks exclusions or alternatives, placing it at the 'implied usage' level.

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