delete_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a critical behavioral trait beyond the schema: deleting a draft does not delete the associated permanent materials (微信行为). It also shows the success return shape. For a tool with zero annotations, this is meaningful behavioral disclosure, although it falls short of full transparency (e.g., no error behavior, no idempotency note, no permission requirements).

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 compact: two sentences plus a one-item parameter list. The key behavioral warning (does not delete associated permanent materials) is front-loaded in the attention paragraph before the parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?

The tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and the description adds the success return and the critical non-cascade deletion behavior. For a simple delete tool, this is largely complete. Missing minor items could include error conditions, idempotency, or permission requirements, but the description's length and clarity are appropriate for the level of complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining media_id is the draft ID and it's the sole parameter, and the success response references it. However, it only repeats the schema's 'Media Id' notion with '草稿 ID' and doesn't add more depth such as where to find this ID or constraints on the value. Basic useful compensation for one required parameter, but not rich enough for a higher score.

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 uses a specific verb ('删除') with a clear resource ('指定草稿'), satisfying the purpose statement requirement of verb+resource. It explicitly states the success return value, and although siblings exist for managing drafts (create, list, get), this delete operation is clearly distinguished by the delete semantics and the mention of behavior that only deletion triggers (永久素材 not being released).

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 context for when to use the tool: when deleting a specified draft by media_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools are self-evidently create/list/get, and the delete action is unambiguous. Strong context for a simple delete router, though it could have explicitly said 'use get_draft/list_drafts to find drafts, not this tool.'

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