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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it identifies the tool as a WRITE operation, discloses the POST /a2a/tasks route, explains two authentication modes, states the exact response shape, and warns that task_id is server-assigned ('客户端不得自拟'). It also sets expectations that gateway-criteria adjudication is done elsewhere and this tool only passes through the reading.

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 content is dense, front-loaded with purpose, and logically ordered from required fields to auth, response, and boundary. The cost is that almost every fact appears in both English and Chinese, which doubles length without adding new information; still, no sentence is purely decorative.

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?

Given ten parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the full calling contract: purpose, required fields, additional useful params, auth options, endpoint, return field names, server-side ID constraint, and where decision authority lies. An agent can form a correct publish request without external lookup.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by framing the four required parameters as 'delegation fields', explaining that ${artifact} in acceptance_criteria is substituted by the deliverer, and giving the auth object's canonical source. The phrase '另需 deliverable_schema 与 acceptance_criteria' is slightly ambiguous against the schema's required list, but the extra examples and semantics still exceed the baseline.

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 opening sentence names a concrete operation and role: 'Publish a task (WRITE, first step of the lifecycle)'. The required field list and '写动作' clarify it is the creation step, distinguishing it from sibling lifecycle tools such as qy_claim, qy_deliver, qy_cancel, and qy_verify.

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 explicitly positions this as the first lifecycle step and explains the credential flow (session identity after qy_register, or explicit auth for cross-session). It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the lifecycle positioning and WRITE marker give an agent enough context to avoid using it for later-step operations.

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