submit_tasting_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral constraint — the data is a non-authoritative funnel ('AI 不据此给任何权威结论') — but does not describe write side effects, idempotency, error handling, or whether a confirmation is returned. Some useful context is added, but not a complete behavioral picture 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful caveat about data provenance. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description only partially compensates. The schema handles parameter definitions, and the source restriction is useful, but the agent still gets no guidance on required fields (distilleryId), expected return behavior, or any consequences of submitting. It is minimally sufficient for a straightforward submit action but leaves 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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (nose, score, finish, palate, source, taster, product, distilleryId) already labeled. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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: '提交一条品鉴笔记' (submit a tasting note), and adds the '数据漏斗' (data funnel) framing, which clearly sets it apart from the read/list/recommend siblings. The submit action is unique among the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Clearly establishes when to use the tool — when there is a tasting note to submit — and adds an explicit source restriction ('仅采信真人来源' – only human sources are accepted). It does not name alternatives such as get_flavor_profile, but the submit-vs-read distinction already provides strong contextual guidance.

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