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

Annotations only flag mutation/not-idempotent/open-world, while the description adds substantial context: admin permission requirement, human-relay nature, contact info is withheld, and the receipt means ticket progress, NOT delivery/acceptance/signup. This is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints, though no rate limit or failure behavior is described.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the permission/relay tag and eligibility come first, followed by the action and the preview contract. Every clause carries information; slightly telegraphic phrasing costs it the top mark.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers permissions, scope, receipt semantics and the two-phase preview workflow, which is close to complete. The unexplained activityRef and the orphan '链接' reference are the only gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the burden, and it explains the critical preview/previewHash confirm-cycle (default preview=true, then same params + previewHash, preview=false). It implies userId ('指定云用户') and note, but never explains activityRef, and mentions '链接' for which no schema field exists, leaving a partial gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: submitting a designated cloud user, link and note to a human secretary to relay a public activity guest invitation. The 【需管理权限·人工转达】 tag distinguishes it from direct/automated invite siblings like invite_activity_cloud_member_manually, though it never names those alternatives.

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 gives a clear precondition (只已发布未开场的公开活动) and a concrete workflow (default preview, then re-submit with previewHash and preview=false on confirmation, re-confirm on change). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for when the activity is not eligible.

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