删除本地文稿

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two important traits: the operation does NOT touch the Qimao backend, and confirm defaults to a non-destructive preview. It stops short of stating reversibility or permission requirements, but the safety-critical scope and dry-run behavior are well 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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the confirmation default. Every phrase earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 tool (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers what is affected (local only) and the confirmation flow. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior and reversibility, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 both article_id and confirm. The description restates the confirm=false preview semantics, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema's '是否真正删除，默认 false'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (删除) and resource (本地文稿库条目), and crucially clarifies scope with '不影响七猫后台', which distinguishes it from the many *_qimao delete tools (delete_short_story_qimao, delete_chapter_qimao) in the sibling set. An agent can tell this operates on the local store only.

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 the intended flow ('默认 confirm=false 只预览') so an agent understands the preview-then-commit pattern, but it never states when to choose this over the related delete_short_story_qimao or delete_chapter_qimao siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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