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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), it discloses login requirement, that the action is free and can be repeated, and concrete error semantics (403 not_your_need for ownership, 409 need_closed for state conflicts). This is rich behavioral context not available in 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?

A single dense sentence with the login requirement front-loaded in a bracketed tag, then the core action, siblings, and error codes. Every clause carries information, though the terse error-code shorthand is slightly cryptic.

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 simple state-restoration tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, ownership gate, and conflict resolution path completely.

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% with a single needId parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds a real constraint on that parameter's value — it must reference the caller's own need ('本人') — which the schema's bare '需求 id' label does not convey.

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 (reopen/restore) and resource (need) with scope ('本人手动下架需求'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming unpublish_need as its pair and create_need as the tool for closed needs. An agent can identify its purpose without opening the 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 explicit when-to-use (restoring a manually unpublished own need), when-not (non-owner → 403 not_your_need), and the alternative for out-of-scope cases (cancelled/completed → 409 need_closed, use create_need). No inference required.

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