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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real value beyond them: login is required, the removal is reversible, status and contact threads are untouched, nothing is deleted, and neither time nor ongoing contact auto-unpublishes the need. It also enumerates the two failure modes (403 not_your_need for non-owners, 409 need_closed for closed needs), which no annotation conveys.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded, with the reversible-removal semantics stated before the reopen_need pointer and error codes. The telegraphic semicolon-chained style is compact but slightly harder to parse than flowing sentences, which keeps it just below 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 one-parameter, non-destructive state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: auth, ownership, reversibility, what is preserved, the restore path, and both error responses. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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?

There is a single required parameter (needId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about needId itself, which is acceptable here because there is only one obvious identifying field.

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 names a specific verb ('可逆移出信息流' – reversibly remove my own need from the feed) and resource ('本人需求'), and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion ('不删除') and from cancellation/completion via the 409 need_closed case. An agent can separate this from delete_need, cancel_need, and complete_need 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?

It gives clear preconditions (must be logged in, must own the need, need must not be cancelled/completed) and points to reopen_need as the exact reverse operation available for free. What it does not do is explicitly contrast itself with cancel_need or delete_need beyond the 'not deleted' remark, leaving the closest sibling choice partly inferred.

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