light_delete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the important fact that deletion is not recoverable and should be used with care. This is genuinely useful beyond structured metadata. It does not contradict 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?

Two compact bilingual sentences state the purpose and warning with no extraneous detail. The irreversibility warning is front-loaded before the English translation, and the whole description is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema cover everything needed to call it correctly: what it deletes, the input name, and the irreversibility warning. There is no missing return-value explanation because no output schema exists.

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 single parameter 'light' is fully documented in the schema with '灯光名称。 | Light name.' and the description adds no additional syntax, format, or example. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 states a specific operation ('Delete') and resource ('a light'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_objects or other light_* operations, though the verb and resource are sufficient for basic identification.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as delete_objects, light_set, or undo_last. The cautionary note advises care but does not describe prerequisites, side effects, or routing conditions. This is a clear gap.

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