Manage IM anti-spam / Yidun

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

Annotations already flag the tool as mutating and destructive, and the description adds the non-obvious operational requirement that switch actions must pass confirm: true — a real gate the agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of explaining what close actually affects or whether it is reversible, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the domain and then the action-by-action breakdown; every clause maps to a distinct action value. It is terse to the point of being dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what `status`, `config`, and `suspect` return; it only says they are queries. Combined with two undocumented parameters, the definition is usable but leaves the agent guessing about return shapes and the `app` scope.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for `action` by defining all six enum values, and it explains `confirm`. However, `app` and `productType` receive no explanation at all (productType only has a terse '默认 IM' in the schema), leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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 opens with the resource domain (内容安全 / 易盾 anti-spam) and then enumerates every action verb with its meaning: status = query activation state, open/close = enable/disable, probation = free trial, config/suspect = query configurations. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like yunxin_im_config_get or yunxin_im_lexicon purely from the text.

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?

Each of the six enum values is mapped to a concrete intent, so the agent knows which action to pick for a given goal, and the prerequisite 'confirm: true' for toggle operations is stated explicitly. What is missing is any routing guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this config action vs. yunxin_im_config_get), so it falls short of a 5.

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