share_purchase_material

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real value by warning that points may be deducted ("可能扣除积分"), but it does not say whether deductions are reversible, what happens if confirmation is withheld or the balance is insufficient, or how the cost is determined.

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?

Three compact clauses with the action front-loaded and the cost warning plus confirmation gate following immediately; nothing is redundant. The telegraphic semicolon style is slightly terse but wastes no words.

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 annotations covering the destructive profile, an output schema present, and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: purpose, point cost, and the read-then-confirm flow. Only failure/refund semantics are missing, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 both confirm and material_id are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of "confirm=true" merely restates the schema's confirm parameter without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific action on a specific resource ("兑换资料" = redeem/purchase a material), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as share_redeem_points, share_download_material, or share_get_material, so the agent gets no explicit routing help.

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?

"请先读取详情确认价格" gives a concrete prerequisite workflow (read the material detail first to check price) and "confirm=true 执行" states the execution gate. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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