share_close_banner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it does not clarify whether 'close' is a per-user mark-as-read or a global dismissal — a meaningful distinction given openWorldHint — nor whether the action is idempotent or reversible.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than maximal clarity.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage and an output schema, the mechanical requirements to call it are covered. The remaining gap is conceptual: the dual framing '关闭 / 标记已读' leaves the resulting state ambiguous, which matters for a non-destructive but state-changing call in an open-world context.

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 coverage is 100% and banner_id is documented as a positive integer platform object ID, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g. where IDs come from), which is acceptable at baseline for a single-parameter tool.

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 pair (关闭/标记已读) and a specific resource (某条平台公告), so an agent can tell this mutates a single banner rather than listing them. It does not explicitly name share_list_banners as the discovery counterpart, but the singular '某条' plus an ID parameter makes the distinction clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. obtaining banner_id from share_list_banners), and no note on when to use this versus simply ignoring a banner. The usage is only inferrable from the verb and the required ID.

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