删除课节视频

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the explicit warning '删除后不可恢复' (irreversible after deletion), which elaborates on the destructive consequence. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as required permissions or side effects. The added value beyond annotations is minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a parameter list and return note, though these are partially redundant with the schema. Overall, it is concise and readable, but the redundant parameter list prevents a 5.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the main purpose, irreversibility, and success return. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., the video must exist), and what '操作结果' actually contains. Since there is no output schema, this ambiguity is a notable gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps it from scoring lower.

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%, with classId and videoId fully documented in the schema (including exclusiveMinimum and source for classId) and response_format having an enum and default. The description redundantly lists parameter names without adding any semantic detail beyond the schema, so it adds no value here.

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 the action ('删除单个课节的视频' – delete a single class's video) with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like classin_set_class_video (set) and classin_update_video_lock_status (update) by explicitly indicating deletion, though it does not explicitly compare with other delete tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does and the irreversibility, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer it over other delete tools. This is a clear gap.

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