yupao_execute_action

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

Annotations already say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false; the description adds real value on top with its human-in-the-loop requirement, the absence of an auto-approve flag, the default-off stance, and the idempotency warning against resending on ambiguous results. It does not say what a given action actually does or whether it can be irreversible despite destructiveHint=false, which is a notable remaining gap.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core instruction and each carrying behavioural content — no filler. '默认关闭' is slightly telegraphic (default off for what — the tool, or an auto-approve switch?), which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the safety story is well covered, but two things an agent needs are missing: how to resolve action_id, and what a success vs. failure response means. Adequate but with clear 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?

The single parameter action_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does not — nothing explains what an action id is or where to obtain it (presumably from yupao_get_action or a yupao_prepare_* call). '已预览的' hints at provenance but gives no format or sourcing guidance.

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 concrete verb (执行/execute) and a bounded resource (a single, already-previewed action), making clear this is the confirmation step rather than preparation. It does not name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5, but the phrase '已预览' implicitly separates it from the yupao_prepare_* and yupao_get_action tools.

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 sets clear conditions: the action must already have been previewed, and a real human must confirm it — no auto-approval parameter exists. It also gives explicit retry guidance ('结果不明不重发' — don't resend when the outcome is unclear). It stops short of naming alternatives such as yupao_get_action for fetching the action id.

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