delete_live_pull_stream_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion (implying destructive), but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated resources. The return value ('请求ID' meaning 'request ID') is noted but without context on how to use it.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list and return statement are structured but not overly verbose. However, the formatting with indentation and separate sections is slightly more structured than necessary for pure conciseness.

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?

Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (safety, permissions), doesn't explain the return value's significance, and provides minimal usage context. For a 4-parameter deletion tool in a live streaming context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but adds minimal semantics beyond the schema—it notes 'specify_task_id' is optional and provides Chinese translations, but doesn't explain interdependencies (e.g., when to use 'task_id' vs 'specify_task_id') or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('删除' meaning 'delete') and resource ('直播拉流任务' meaning 'live pull stream task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_live_domain' or 'delete_live_transcode_rule' by specifying the exact resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar deletion tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'describe_live_pull_stream_tasks' (which might list tasks before deletion) or 'create_live_pull_stream_task' (its counterpart). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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