xhs_favorite_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the idempotent behavior ('已处于目标状态时自动跳过') and the token requirement. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as reversibility, potential side effects, and return value, which would be valuable for an agent to know.

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?

The description is a single sentence that leads with the primary verb and resource. It includes only essential information—the action, the smart-skip behavior, and the required inputs—with no redundant content. Excellent structure and economy of 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?

Given the low complexity (3 scalar parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose, behavioral nuance, and required inputs. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning return values or error conditions, which are currently absent. This is a minor gap, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the default for unfavorite. The description only reiterates that feedId and xsecToken are required, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic insight is provided, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action: '为笔记收藏或取消收藏' (favorite or unfavorite a note), identifying both the verb and the resource. It also mentions '智能检测当前状态' which distinguishes its behavior from simpler toggle tools and from the sibling like_feed. This is specific and avoids ambiguity.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like like_feed, nor does it mention exclusions. The intended use is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no direct comparison or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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