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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses major side effects: a new conversation deducts daily quota and automatically sends an opener. It also documents response-signal fields (created/openerSent), error handling for 403 and 429, and the instruction not to fabricate message body when none is returned.

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 description is compact and every clause carries operational information, but the structure is telegraphic and semicolon-heavy, starting with '登录;get_creator核真人' rather than front-loading what the tool does. The workflow chain at the end ('配置→开聊→send_message') is useful but makes the overall ordering feel like a checklist rather than a readable definition.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral surface: quota deduction, auto-opening, idempotency for existing conversations, response flags, and error-code alternatives. It does not fully explain the returned conversation object or the practical use of productId, but it is otherwise complete enough to call 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 coverage is 100%, so both peerUserId and productId are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect context ('get_creator核真人') and does not explain the optional productId or the cuid format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys that this creates a new conversation and auto-sends an opener ('新会话扣每日额度并自动开场'), and it distinguishes the operation from send_cooperation_request and send_message. However, it never plainly states the verb+resource in a single clear phrase; the purpose is inferred from the quota/idempotency caveats rather than front-loaded.

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 explicit when-to-use context and alternatives: verify the person with get_creator, use send_cooperation_request for cloud-user 403 cases, do not retry on quota 429 that day, and do not greet again if openerSent is already true. It also describes the configuration-to-chat workflow via get_my_chat_opener/set_my_chat_opener and send_message.

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