prepare_note

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the side effect (uploading assets to the platform), the boundary (does NOT submit the note), the authorization precondition, and the return shape (task ID + screenshot path) despite there being no output 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its outputs, then the scope caveat and precondition. No redundant or filler content, though it could add a routing cue to publish_note without bloat.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description usefully covers the return values, the non-submission boundary, and the authorization prerequisite. However, it leaves the required fields undocumented, so an agent still lacks enough to populate the call confidently.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema provides no field-level meaning. The description only alludes to 'local images' and a 'publish form', leaving required fields like platform, destination, destination_option, tags, and account entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: uploads user-specified local images and fills the publish form, returning a task ID and screenshot path. The clause '此步骤向平台上传素材但不提交笔记' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling publish_note, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives clear context: it prepares material without submitting, and states the precondition that user upload authorization is required. It does not explicitly say to call it before publish_note or name the alternatives, so guidance is contextual rather than fully prescriptive.

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