delete_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除规则' only indicates a destructive deletion action but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., if related data is cascade-deleted), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 a single two-character phrase ('删除规则'), which is extremely concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from guidelines) and fails to provide necessary context that would justify its brevity. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, expected outcomes, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors. The agent is left with significant gaps about how to use this tool correctly and what to expect.

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 one parameter ('id' described as '规则ID' - rule ID). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies 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 '删除规则' (delete rule) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in Chinese. It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (rule) but provides no additional context about what a 'rule' represents in this system or what deletion entails. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'create_rule' or 'update_rule', it doesn't clarify scope or differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_project'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete active rules), or relationships with sibling tools like 'get_rule' to verify existence first. Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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