pls_delete_car

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds value with '删除不可撤销！' and the requirement for a confirmation parameter. It also discloses the return format, going beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured: header, parameter list, return format, hint. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the entity-type note is slightly ambiguous. Overall, it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, required confirmation, return format, and irreversibility. It could mention that the confirm parameter must match exactly, but the schema covers that.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the return format and specifies that confirm must be '确认', which is already in schema. The line '根据实体类型传入对应字段' is somewhat redundant and vague, providing minimal additional meaning.

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 '删除车辆实体' (delete car entity), providing a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like pls_create_car and pls_update_car.

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 for deleting a car but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other delete tools (e.g., pls_delete_person, pls_delete_goods). There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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