record_share_attribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It states the tool writes to a ledger ('写入激活账本'), indicating a recording action, but fails to disclose whether it is idempotent, whether it can overwrite, or any permission requirements. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 uses an emoji and bilingual headers, which may be visually noisy. The parameter list is clear but not extremely concise. It is moderately structured but could be more efficient.

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?

All 7 parameters are described, but there is no explanation of the return value or output schema, despite one existing. The description does not cover edge cases or integration with sibling tools. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description provides brief explanations for all 7 parameters, including Chinese translations and examples for 'contribution' (forge/refine/publish/infuse/quest/sect). However, it does not specify exact allowed values or format constraints for 'share_url', and the list for 'contribution' appears to be examples rather than a closed set. Given 0% schema coverage, the description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 tool records a public share URL associated with a real TianGong contribution, using the verb 'record' and specifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'record_growth_referral', which could be confused for a similar recording action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'share_attribution_report' or 'record_growth_referral'. The description implies it's for post-contribution attribution, but no when-not-to or prerequisites are given.

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