删除课节

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

The description discloses the irreversibility of deletion ('删除后不可恢复'), which adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and readOnlyHint. However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or failure behavior, so the score is moderate.

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 concise, with only two sentences plus parameter and return sections. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. However, the parameter/return sections are redundant with the schema, and the description is extremely brief, making it slightly under-specified.

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 is a simple delete operation with a single required parameter. The description covers the action and irreversibility, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior on failure, and no output schema exists, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including classId's source ('通过创建课节接口获得') and response_format's default. The description only repeats 'classId: 课节ID' and adds no semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 '删除课节' (delete course class) and resource, and adds the key note '删除后不可恢复' (irreversible after deletion), which differentiates it from sibling delete tools like classin_delete_course_student. It provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing itself effectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or why one would use this instead of other delete tools. It simply states the action and irreversibility, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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