Create Sharing Draft

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

注释已声明 readOnlyHint=false、destructiveHint=false，因此代理知道这是非破坏性写入工具。描述补充了可运行分析器的能力，但未说明权限要求、输出 sddraft 的性质或 overwrite_existing_service 等参数的行为影响。在注释覆盖安全概况的情况下，3 分合适。

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?

单句简洁，且将核心操作和范围前置。没有不必要的赘述，但信息密度较低。

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?

工具复杂度高（23 参数、无 schema 描述、输出 schema 存在但描述未解释），描述仅覆盖用途，严重缺乏参数和行为指导，无法让代理正确调用。

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 为 0%，且描述未提及任何 23 个参数中的任何一个。对于这种复杂工具，参数语义完全缺失，代理无法从描述中获得参数用途信息。

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?

明确说明了动词（创建）和资源（sharing draft），并列出支持的内容类型（地图、图层/表、数据集、GP结果）以及可选的分析器运行。虽然没有明确区分与其他发布相关兄弟工具（如 stage_service_definition），但比单纯重复名称提供了更具体的范围。

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?

隐含了使用场景（为共享创建草稿），但没有说明何时应使用此工具代替其他工具，也没有 prerequisites 或替代方案。对于 23 个参数的工具，缺少选择指导是明显的缺口。

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