删除复习 PDF

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what is affected ('指定导出及其 PDF 文件') and what is not ('题目、FSRS 或优先级'). This goes beyond the tool name and provides useful context about side effects. However, it does not mention permanence or irreversibility, which is a common expectation for a delete operation, but the deletion is inherently destructive and the scope is well specified.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It states the primary action, the target, and a clear exclusion of unintended effects. Every part earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 is simple (one parameter, no annotations) and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to cover return values. However, the description lacks parameter guidance and explicit usage conditions. It covers purpose and side effects adequately, but the 0% parameter coverage creates a gap that the description does not fully fill, making it only minimally complete overall.

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?

The input schema has one parameter `export_id` with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description only references '指定导出' (specified export) without explaining the format of `export_id`, how to obtain it, or any constraints. Since the schema provides no information and the description barely adds value, the parameter semantics are weak.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: '删除指定导出及其 PDF 文件' (deletes the specified export and its PDF file). It specifies a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('export/PDF'), and the negative clause '但不会修改题目、FSRS 或优先级' distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify problems or priorities. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguished from siblings.

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: use this when you want to remove an export and its PDF. The negative statement about not modifying problems/FSRS/priorities provides some guidance on non-use cases, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use'. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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