chuangJianRenWu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says almost nothing: it does not disclose persistence, permissions, whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the character is bound to a world/story, or what the response returns. '创建新的' implies a mutation but no mutation behavior is characterized.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing '等信息' is slightly vague padding, but overall there is no wasted structure.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate because the schema fully documents the inputs. It leaves unaddressed the creation context (relationship to sheZhiShiJieGuan/world settings) and any notion of what a successful creation yields.

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 all five fields (mingZi, xingGe, waiMao, beiJing, guanXi) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes a subset of those fields and adds no format, constraint, or relationship semantics, 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?

States a specific verb ('创建') and resource ('小说人物') and enumerates the kinds of data involved (姓名、性格、背景), so an agent can tell it apart from the read/list siblings like huoQuRenWu and lieJuRenWu. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the write counterpart to lieJuRenWu/huoQuRenWu, and nothing says whether a world setting or existing characters must exist first.

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