pls_delete_alarm_rule

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description's warning '删除不可撤销！' adds emphasis but not new information. The return structure is provided. No side effects or error behaviors are disclosed. Overall, minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the purpose. The emoji and formatting may be seen as clutter, but it's still concise. The vague '根据实体类型传入对应字段' could be removed for clarity.

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 action with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format and an irreversibility warning. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, and what happens to related data. The annotations help, but completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description only highlights 'confirm' and 'ids' as required, and vaguely mentions '根据实体类型传入对应字段'. Since the schema already provides descriptions, the description adds marginal semantic value.

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 it deletes alarm rule entities. The verb '删除' and resource '告警规则实体' are specific. However, the line '根据实体类型传入对应字段' suggests broader applicability, which may confuse. The tool name reinforces specificity, so it's mostly clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other delete tools (e.g., pls_delete_tag, pls_delete_person). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The description assumes the agent already knows when to call it.

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