xhs_publish_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the login requirement and input constraints (image format and count), which is useful. However, it does not mention post-publish behavior, error conditions, or side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists requirements and prerequisites in a clear, ordered manner. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites and key input constraints. It lacks explicit mention of success/failure feedback or error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward publish action.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely echoes the schema details (title max 20 characters, at least one image, local/HTTP paths, optional tags) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('发布' – publish) and the resource ('图文笔记到小红书' – image-text note to Xiaohongshu), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle login, search, like, and favorite operations. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite of being logged in ('发布前需已登录') and enumerates required inputs (title, content, at least one image, optional tags). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the publish action is clearly distinct from sibling tools, providing sufficient usage context.

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