tianJiaJuQingXian

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permissions needed, whether existing plot lines are affected, return values, or how the new clue integrates with existing story data.

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 short phrase with no filler, and it front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it is slightly too terse to earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description omits when to use it, behavioral traits such as required permissions, and any output expectations. The schema covers parameter documentation, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke confidently.

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%, and each parameter (mingCheng, miaoShu, zhuangTai, xiangGuanZhangJie) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 ('添加') and resource ('剧情线索'), clearly indicating creation of a plot thread. It does not explicitly differentiate from the retrieval sibling huoQuJuQingXian or other creation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. '追踪故事发展' is a vague rationale, not guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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