delete_homework

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 submission guard, that a refusal throws an error rather than silently no-opping, and the consent-token requirement. It leaves out irreversibility and permission scope, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive safety guard front-loaded ahead of the consent prerequisite. Nothing is padded and the ordering matches how an agent should reason before calling.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the guard, the error behavior, and the consent prerequisite. It omits whether deletion is permanent and what identifiers/return data come back, but those are secondary for correct 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by specifying where consentToken comes from (request_ui_consent / X-Consent-Token), which the schema does not explain. homeworkId semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource (刪除作業), which unambiguously identifies the operation and separates it from siblings like delete_exam or copy_homework. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource is distinct enough that no confusion is likely.

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?

It states a clear blocking precondition (refuses if submittedCount > 0) and a required prerequisite (a consent token obtained via request_ui_consent), which is actionable routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative path or explaining what to do instead when the deletion is refused.

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