mfuns_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the ownership restriction ('仅限本人内容'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or error behavior for invalid/unauthorized targets, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a two-line args list. It is front-loaded with the action and uses no filler words, making it highly efficient 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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return values are not required in the description. It covers the core action and parameters, but lacks critical context like permanence of deletion and error handling. For a delete tool, this is a notable gap, placing it at an adequate but incomplete level.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: target_type enumerates the allowed values (feed=动态, comment=评论) and target_id is defined as the object ID. This adds essential semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 it deletes content (feed or comment) and restricts to own content. The verb 'delete' is specific, and the resource is defined, differentiating it from sibling read/write tools. It also lists the two possible targets, making the purpose 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 provides clear context that only the user's own content can be deleted, which is an important usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it is the only delete tool among siblings. The ownership limitation is the only usage guidance, but it is helpful.

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