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

Goes well beyond the single idempotentHint annotation: login requirement, no automatic outreach/invitation, no overwriting of real person profiles, partial-success semantics, idempotency-key reuse rules, and the constraint that only a success receipt permits claiming the contact was saved/published. This is the kind of edge-case disclosure an agent cannot get from 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?

The critical gate (login + mandatory user confirmation) is front-loaded in brackets, which is the right ordering. The remainder packs several distinct branches into dense run-on clauses with ambiguous antecedents ('沿用原token/key'), which slows parsing but each clause carries real operational content.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers prerequisites, mutation side effects, idempotent retry behavior, partial-failure states, and the claim-only-on-success rule — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely. Return-shape detail is unnecessary given receipt semantics are already summarized.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters — and it does: previewToken is tied to the confirmed preview, idempotencyKey is tied to reuse-on-retry vs. new-key-on-plan-change. Minor gap: no format/opacity guidance (e.g. token lifetime, key length) and the mention of 'resumeReceiptId' refers to the sibling preview tool's parameter, which could momentarily confuse an agent about this tool's schema.

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: '按previewToken保存私人人脉及已选公开范围', and bounds it with '不自动联系/邀请或覆盖真人档案'. It also makes clear the tool is the commit step of the preview_network_contact_intake flow, so an agent can separate it from the preview sibling. The Chinese-only, jargon-dense phrasing ('PARTIAL', '原token/key') slightly blunts immediate comprehension.

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?

Explicit preconditions ('【登录；必须先经用户核对具体预览并明确确认】') and explicit alternative routing: to change the plan, re-run the preview with resumeReceiptId, then submit with a new key. It also spells out the retry branch (unknown/PARTIAL → reuse same token/key, skip completed items) and the ambiguous case (contactId + errorCode = not done).

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