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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses irreversibility, no rollback for already-completed sub-steps, partial failures, and two permission boundaries (only poster can unpublish, only initiator can change status). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive cascade.

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 dense but well organized: when-to-use, what the tool does, the preview chain, then caveats. Every sentence carries operational value and the content is front-loaded; no filler or repeated schema text.

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 multi-step mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, actions, preview flow, failure semantics, permission restrictions, and even the shape of an important response field (skipped=not_your_need). Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 already documents status enum values and preview semantics; the description adds little about goalId, which is undocumented but simple. It does map user intent ('做完了/不做了') to status choices and explains the preview-then-execute chain, but that is more usage behavior than parameter detail, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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?

Description names a specific verb+resource (closing a collaboration goal) and precisely enumerates three cascading effects: status change, unpublishing recruitment needs from the public feed, and stopping period-generating rules. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_collaboration_goal by stating that a plain status update does not cascade.

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 【何时用】 section gives an exact trigger condition ('用户说这个目标做完了/不做了') and explicitly warns against using update_collaboration_goal alone. It also routes to unpublish_need for needs posted by other collaborators, so the agent knows when to delegate instead of invoking this tool.

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