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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: an auth requirement, the post-moderation model (published and publicly visible immediately, reviewed after), and slug auto-generation/derivation on collision. Annotations only cover the read/write/idempotent profile, so this extra context is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loads the login requirement and the core action, then batches the slug and follow-up details. Each sentence carries useful information with minimal waste, though it packs several distinct facts into one compound string.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, moderation, publishing, and slug behavior but omits most parameter-level meaning and any hint about the return. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema's low description coverage.

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 44%, so the description must compensate. It explains slug semantics (optional, server-generated from name, auto-derived when taken), which maps to one parameter, but leaves name, tags, links, logoUrl, and coverUrl undocumented in both places.

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 and resource (新建一个产品/作品) and clarifies scope vs. the sibling update_my_product, which is explicitly named as the follow-up tool for links/media/tags. An agent can distinguish this create path from the update path 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?

Gives clear context: login required, and after creation use update_my_product to add links/media/tags. This routes the agent correctly between create and update, but it never states an explicit 'when not to use' or a precondition (e.g. required account state beyond login).

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