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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required login and active-host role, that the default mode is a non-committing preview requiring a hash to actually execute, and the important side-effect boundary '只记状态，不联系对方' (status only, no contact with the other party). It stops short of stating what the success response contains or whether a note overwrites prior notes.

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 semicolon-separated clauses front-load the hard precondition (login/role) and then the workflow, with zero filler sentences. The telegraphic style is dense but each clause carries distinct information; it is not padded, though the clipped phrasing costs a little readability.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the riskiest parts (two-step preview/hash execution, reopen limits, no notification side effect). It is still incomplete on the note field and organizationId and on what a successful call returns, which an agent would need to complete the operation correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate; it explains reopen and the preview/previewHash pairing reasonably well. However, it says nothing about note (up to 1000 chars), conversationId as the required anchor, or organizationId, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 implies a state change on a host follow-up via 'reopen=true重开' and '只记状态', but never states the primary action (marking a follow-up as done) in verb+resource form. It does not name the closely related siblings list_host_followups / log_host_followup / remind_host_followup, so an agent must infer from the tool name alone which of the four follow-up tools applies.

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?

'登录;需在任主理人' establishes auth and role preconditions, and the preview-then-execute-with-hash pattern tells the agent exactly how to invoke it safely. '不能恢复谢绝或撤回的申请' is an explicit when-not condition, though no alternative tool is offered for finding or creating follow-ups.

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