pls_delete_tag

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

The description discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible (删除不可撤销), which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It also explains the return value format and the need for a confirmation parameter, adding context beyond the 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 concise, using a structured bullet-point format that clearly delineates parameters, return value, and warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, required confirmation, return format, and the irreversible nature. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as the requirement for 'confirm' and the hint about passing fields based on entity type. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'tag entity' (删除标签实体), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for other entities like persons, cars, etc.

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 clear prerequisites: the 'confirm' parameter must be set to '确认'. It also warns that deletion is irreversible, guiding the agent to use caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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