mark_poster_processed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that it moves an image (out of 00_待處理) and appends a CSV log, and mentions statuses map to folders. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like file system changes, whether it modifies existing files, or error conditions. For a file-moving tool, more could be said, but the description does provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff. It effectively conveys the core action and when to use it.

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 the tool mutates file system state and has 9 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's role relative to create_event/update_event and covers the main use case. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error handling, but no output schema is expected. Slight gap: no list of parameters in the description, but the schema covers them all. A 4 is fair.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the 'status' parameter to folder destinations via an example ('created -> 10_已新增...') in the schema, and clarifies the tool's purpose. It doesn't add much beyond schema, but the schema itself is quite descriptive, so a 4 is justified for reinforcing the workflow.

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 what the tool does: 'Move one poster image out of 00_待處理 after processing and append the CSV log.' It names the verb (move/append), the resource (poster image, CSV log), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that create_event/update_event normally do this automatically, making this tool for manual corrections or review.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Normally create_event/update_event do this automatically... Use this for manual corrections or posters that need review.' This gives clear context and exclusions, naming sibling tools and their relationship.

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