yuque_destroy_recycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, the cookie+ctoken auth requirement, and the mandatory confirm token. It omits rate limits, response format, or what happens to nested content, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the destructive nature and the guard requirement, then gives the endpoint and reference doc. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a destructive two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, auth needs, and confirmation guard. A pointer to the full API doc covers remaining gaps, though return behavior is not addressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the schema itself explains the 'DELETE' guard. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a recycle bin item'), and by using 'permanently delete' it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling yuque_restore_recycle. The API endpoint reinforces the action.

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 irreversibility warning plus the required confirm='DELETE' guard signal clearly when this is appropriate, and the sibling name restore_recycle implies the alternative. No explicit when-not/alternative routing sentence, however.

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