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

Goes well beyond the annotations: login requirement, the fact that status and engagement data are untouched, that neither engagement nor time will auto-unpublish, that the operation is reversible, and the exact error codes for non-owner (403) and closed needs (409). This materially reduces invocation risk for a mutation tool.

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 prerequisite and the core side effect, then packs the escape hatch and error codes. Dense but every clause carries information; only the bracketed login marker is stylistically heavy.

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 single-param state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, reversibility, side effects, the recovery path, and failure modes – nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (needId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about id format or sourcing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('本人需求可逆移出信息流' – reversibly removes my own need from the feed) and immediately distinguishes it from deletion ('不删除') and from its inverse sibling ('reopen_need免费反复恢复'). An agent can route between unpublish/delete/cancel/complete without opening another 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?

Names reopen_need as the reverse operation and spells out the blocking conditions (非本人403, 取消/完成409), which tells the agent when this call will fail. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of delete_need when you only want to hide it', but the reversible/non-deleting framing implies the choice clearly.

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