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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing the login requirement, the exact side effects (removed from feed, status/contact unchanged, not deleted), the lack of auto-unpublishing, and explicit failure semantics (403 not_your_need, 409 need_closed). This is highly transparent.

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 well-structured with labeled sections 【需要登录】 and 【失败语义】. It front-loads the core purpose and effect, then provides the usage trigger and failure modes. Every sentence contributes operational value with no filler.

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-parameter, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, lifecycle pairing with reopen_need, and failure cases. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect, with no significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100% but the only parameter description is '需求 id'. The tool description adds useful semantics: the needId must belong to the caller (自己的需求; 非本人 403) and cannot reference a cancelled/completed need (409 need_closed), which goes beyond the bare schema description.

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 and resource: '把自己的需求移出信息流' — removes one's own need from the feed — and clarifies it does not delete or change status/contact. It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_need and pairs with reopen_need, so an agent can easily tell it apart from siblings.

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 guidance: '想暂时不展示就用它' (use when you want to temporarily stop showing it) and notes that needs do not auto-unpublish by contact or time, strengthening the case for using it. It names reopen_need as the alternative for re-display, but does not explicitly state 'do not use for permanent deletion' aside from the behavioral note '不删除'.

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