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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that publishing triggers asynchronous matching and push notifications, that the need becomes publicly visible, that login is required, and that images must be mirrored first. It stops short of describing what is returned or failure/validation behavior.

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 whole definition is one dense semicolon-delimited block, front-loaded with login and the publish action, and essentially every clause carries operational information. The telegraphic style with arrow chains is harder to parse than plain sentences but wastes very little.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects, parameter constraints, the follow-up workflow, and the edit alternative. The main remaining gap is what the call yields (e.g. a need id) and how validation failures surface, since no output schema exists to fill that in.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the title length rule is paired with the qualitative instruction "写具体", contextType/contextId must be supplied as a pair, the referenced object must belong to the caller, and images require a prior upload_image_from_url call. Those ownership and pairing constraints are not expressed in the 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?

"发布真实公开需求" gives a specific verb (publish) plus resource (need) and scope (real, public), and it explicitly routes edits to update_need. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_goal_recruit_need, which is only disambiguated inside the schema's contextType description, so it falls just short of full sibling coverage.

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 states the prerequisite (登录), the pre-call step (先确认title/detail), the post-call workflow chain (create→get_need_recommendations→get_creator/contact_need), and the alternative for a different intent (修改用update_need). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and sequencing are all explicit.

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