delete_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mechanism (status change, not physical deletion), the side effect (excluded from retrieval), and reversibility. It omits permission/authorization requirements and whether the operation is idempotent or errors on unknown/already-deleted ids.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the behavioral substance in the first clause. The parameter line is redundant with the schema but minimally costs space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the key mutation semantics (soft delete, retrieval exclusion, recoverability) and the '已审批' scope. It stops short of stating who may delete or how non-approved experiences are handled.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, and the description only restates the parameter name ('经验的 id' vs. title 'Experience Id'), adding no format, constraint, or sourcing guidance. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the field is largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the crucial qualifier 'soft delete' (软删除) with the resulting state (status set to deleted). The 'soft' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from purge_experiences (hard delete) and restore_experience, though neither sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied: soft-delete an approved experience while keeping it recoverable, with the recovery hint pointing toward restore_experience. However, no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use purge_experiences for permanent removal) is given.

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