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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds auth requirements, the preview/confirm gate, the non-rollback guarantee ('后续失败不会回滚已下架/已停项'), and the skipped=not_your_need edge case. This is meaningful context well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the auth/actor constraint leads, followed by cascade scope, the sibling distinction, the preview workflow, and the irreversibility caveat. Every clause carries unique information, though the run-on style makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the preview result shape, the skipped indicator, irreversibility, and the non-cascading alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive cascade correctly is missing.

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 67% with enum and preview semantics already in the schema. The description goes further by explaining that preview=true yields concrete counts (N recruitments/M rules/K periods) and that preview=false must follow explicit confirmation, adding behavioral meaning to the preview parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('关闭目标' / close goal) plus the cascade effect (级联下架本人公开招募、停周期规则/待生成期次), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_collaboration_goal by noting that one changes status without cascading. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Specifies the required actor ('需登录·目标发起人' - logged-in goal initiator), prescribes the safe workflow (preview=true to see N recruitments/M rules/K periods, then explicit confirmation before preview=false), and routes the excluded case (others' recruitments skipped=not_your_need) to unpublish_need. Explicit when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives.

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