purge_experiences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the deletion is physical, irreversible ('不可恢复'), and warns for caution, which is the critical behavioral fact for this tool. It stops short of mentioning permissions, batch limits, or whether an in-progress job blocks execution.

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?

Opens with the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation, then documents the single parameter — the highest-priority information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 explained, and for a one-parameter destructive operation the description covers action, irreversibility, and parameter meaning adequately. It could add authorization or scheduling context but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain the sole parameter, and it does: 'days' is the retention window, records soft-deleted beyond it are purged, and the default is 30. That fully documents the parameter even though the schema title 'Days' alone would not.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb (物理删除/purge) and a precise resource scope: records that have already been soft-deleted past a day threshold. This clearly separates it from delete_experience (soft delete) and restore_experience, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the semantics — clean up stale soft-deleted records — and the warning '请谨慎' hints at a destructive maintenance operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative such as restore_experience for records that should not be purged.

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