demo_advance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not solely responsible for safety disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the change affects a 'synthetic image' and does not access WeChat, which clarifies the non-real-world impact. However, it does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites, which is acceptable given the demo scope.

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?

A single sentence that communicates the demo-only nature, the action, the resource, and a key constraint (no WeChat access). Every word earns its place; the structure is front-loaded with the most important qualifier ('DEMO ONLY').

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema demo tool, the description is sufficiently complete to allow an agent to understand its purpose and scope. It lacks details like expected outcome or call sequence, but given its simplicity and demo purpose, these omissions are minor.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not document parameters. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description's mention of 'synthetic image' provides semantic context for the operation, which is more than the empty schema offers.

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 clearly states a specific action ('change the synthetic image') and resource ('synthetic image'), with an explicit scope ('without accessing WeChat'). The 'DEMO ONLY' prefix signals its demo nature, distinguishing it from the observation and status sibling tools, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings (get_status, start_observation, poll_changes, etc.). 'DEMO ONLY' implies a demo context, but no clear conditions or alternatives are provided, leaving an agent to infer usage.

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