原生白板编辑操作

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

Annotations already declare this a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, lowering the bar. The description adds that it drives the same native editor as the UI and requires accurate IDs fetched beforehand, but says nothing about reversibility, permission needs, or the expectedVersion concurrency control implied by the 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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no padding: purpose first, then capabilities, then the prerequisite and a unit note. The brevity is structural, not wasteful, though it leaves the action vocabulary unexplained.

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 a multi-action tool with 13 enum actions, 8 parameters at 13% schema coverage, and no nested-object documentation, this description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but the action semantics and expectedVersion behavior are unaddressed.

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 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It contributes one meaningful detail ('rotation 使用角度') and a vague ID/records hint, but the 13-value action enum, ids, text, records, parentId, and expectedVersion remain entirely 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('直接调用与 UI 相同的 MOKI 原生编辑器') and enumerates its capability scope: native props editing, grouping/folders, and mind-map branch operations. This distinguishes it from the plain add_elements/update_elements siblings by framing it as the native UI-equivalent editor, though the 13 discrete actions live only in the 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?

Provides a real prerequisite workflow ('先 whiteboard_inspect/whiteboard_export 获取准确 ID 和记录') naming two sibling tools, which is genuine guidance. However it never says when to choose this over whiteboard_add_elements, whiteboard_update_elements, or whiteboard_delete_elements, the most likely ambiguity given the sibling set.

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