同步论文到腾讯文档

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, etc.), the description reveals specific side effects: it updates [MCP] remarks, preserves non-MCP manual J-column remarks and existing attachments, uploads PDFs, and sorts rows. These details give the agent a clear picture of the tool's non-obvious behaviors, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary actions (write, upload, sort), and each sentence adds unique value—the second sentence clarifies what is preserved. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 complex sync tool with multiple operations and side effects, the description covers all key aspects: the data written, the upload of PDFs, sorting, and the selective update of remarks. The existence of an output schema means return values need no explanation, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool accurately.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description only indirectly references run_id via '运行指定' (specified by the run). This gives some meaning to the parameter but does not explain its format, constraints, or how it maps to the worksheet. Since there is only one parameter, it is adequate but not rich.

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 uses specific verbs ('incrementally write', 'upload', 'sort') and identifies the resource (Tencent Docs worksheet), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_wos and download_fulltext. It also mentions the specific columns (A-J) and remark handling, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies usage when you need to sync results from a run to Tencent Docs, and specifies that it will not overwrite manual remarks or existing attachments, which is a caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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