删除短故事/草稿

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature and the two-phase confirm=false preview vs confirm=true real-deletion behavior, which is important safety context. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility details, but the core destructive semantics are covered.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero waste. The destructive flag and confirm behavior are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity deletion tool with a fully described two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs. It could add one clause about alternatives or permission requirements, but no critical information 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for confirm by explaining that false only previews and true performs the deletion. This goes beyond the schema's wording that confirm simply means 'whether to truly delete, default false'.

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 states a specific verb (删除) and resource (指定短故事或草稿), clearly distinguishing this tool from article-deletion and other siblings. The core action is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for deleting short stories or drafts, and explains the confirm preview/delete behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_article, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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