delete_live_transcode_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 brief with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. However, the structure is somewhat inefficient - the Args section essentially repeats parameter names without adding value beyond the schema. The single-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded but could be more informative about the tool's scope and impact.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'transcode rule' is in this context, what the deletion affects, what the return value '请求ID' (request ID) represents, or error conditions. Given the complexity of live streaming systems and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description lists the four parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '删除转码规则' (delete transcode rule) which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_live_domain or delete_live_pull_stream_task by specifying it's for transcode rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_live_transcode_rule beyond the obvious delete/create distinction.

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., that a transcode rule must exist first), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. With multiple sibling tools for managing live streaming resources, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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