删除LMS活动

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, but the description adds the critical context '删除后不可恢复' (irreversible after deletion), which goes beyond the annotation. This warns about an important behavioral consequence and does not contradict any annotations.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with purpose and key warning. The subsequent parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and does not bloat the description. Overall, it is compact 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?

With strong annotations and complete schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, irreversibility, and success return. It does not explain side effects on related data or prerequisites, but for a simple delete tool this is likely sufficient.

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 defines courseId, activityId, and response_format. The description only repeats courseId and activityId without adding new meaning, and omits response_format entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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LMS活动' (Delete LMS activity), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_folder or delete_file, which target different object types. The scope 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?

Usage context is implied by the delete verb and activity resource: use this when deleting an LMS activity. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The irreversibility warning is present but not framed as a decision guideline.

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