删除LMS单元

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

The description adds the irreversibility warning '删除后不可恢复' (cannot be recovered after deletion), which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This is valuable behavioral context for an AI agent. It does not mention other side effects or requirements, but the annotations already cover the destructive nature.

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 brief and to the point. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by a clear warning and a simple parameter/return listing. Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 description covers the essential information: the purpose, irreversibility, the key parameter, and that a result is returned. However, the return description '成功返回操作结果' (on success returns operation result) is vague and does not specify the structure or content of the result. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the simplicity of the delete operation makes this adequate.

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%, meaning the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description restates the unitId parameter without adding new meaning. It does not mention the response_format parameter, but that is already covered in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 tool's function: '删除LMS学习单元' (delete LMS learning unit). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete other resource types like folders, files, or activities.

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 implies the tool is for deleting LMS units but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or scenarios where a different delete tool would be more appropriate, so usage is only implied by the resource type.

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