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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: no registration/key required and the deduplication rule ('同一份全库只保留一条'). However it omits critical mutation behavior – whether a duplicate overwrites, errors, or merges, how ttl_hours expiry interacts with dedup, and what the call returns.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the dedup constraint; both sentences carry information. It is tight, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the no-auth and dedup essentials but leaves conflict/overwrite semantics, expiry behavior, and error handling unaddressed. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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 71%, above the point where the schema does most of the work, so a 3 baseline applies. The description only echoes the 'source 标识' concept and adds no format, ordering, or interaction detail (e.g., how kind/url/ttl_hours combine) beyond what the schema already documents.

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+resource ('把加工好的成品放回公共仓库' – put processed output back into the public warehouse), which is clear. It partially distinguishes itself from memory_put by framing the destination as a public, no-registration warehouse, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the phrase '加工好的成品' (already-processed finished output) hints that raw content should not go here. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of when to prefer shelf_find over say memory_put, and no prerequisites beyond the no-auth note.

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