管理白板页面分组

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuinely new behavior: deleting a group preserves its pages and returns them to ungrouped, which clarifies the blast radius beyond the annotation. It does not state which of the four actions is destructive or note the version-conflict rejection path, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the actions first and the destructive nuance second, with no filler. It is efficient, though it leaves parameter and usage detail unstated rather than merely compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter, destructive, version-gated mutation tool with 40% schema coverage, the description omits which action pairs with which parameters and says nothing about permission or version requirements beyond what the schema already states. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 40%; boardId and expectedVersion are documented in the schema, but action, name, and groupId have no descriptions anywhere. The description mentions 重命名 (implying name + update) but adds no syntax, format, or required-combination detail to compensate for the 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 specific verbs (创建/重命名/删除/列出) against a specific resource (页面分组), so the agent knows it manages group entities rather than pages. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling whiteboard_manage_pages, which tempers the score.

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 enumerated actions imply the tool's scope, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, and no prerequisites such as needing an inspected version before writes. An agent must infer that this is the right tool versus whiteboard_manage_pages.

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