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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds important consequences beyond that: the publish is a public listing (公开上架), requires user confirmation, and external calls execute directly with apikey identity. It still does not explain reversibility, permissions, or what happens to an existing listing with the same name.

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 front-loaded and compact, but it redundantly repeats the write-operation warning twice and includes a free-cost note that adds little. The [策略] tag and repeated parenthetical notes create unnecessary clutter.

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 destructive nine-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers the required fields, category values, draft publishing, user confirmation, and public-listing consequence. It does not describe return values or side effects on existing public listings, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds meaningful information not present in the schema by specifying category allowed values as dex/defi, and clarifies that strategy_id publishes an existing draft. It omits params, performance, description, and payment_token.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 发布策略 (publish strategy), with additional scope that strategy_id can publish an existing draft. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like platform_manage_strategy, so the agent must infer that this is the irreversible public-listing action rather than general strategy editing.

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?

It provides clear context for use: a write operation requiring user confirmation, a public listing action, and a branch where strategy_id publishes an existing draft. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operational context is sufficient for most agents.

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