anon_put_lostfound_share

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

Annotations already disclose the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful context: the required permission, that regenerate issues a new token and immediately invalidates the old link, and that the project is inferred from the API key. The immediate link-invalidation consequence is exactly the kind of destructive side effect an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then permission, then the critical parameter behavior, then endpoint and path note. Dense and free of filler, though the trailing endpoint/project note is somewhat mechanical and could be trimmed.

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 whose annotations already cover the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description supplies the permission requirement, the consequential regenerate semantics, and path/identity resolution. It does not state what happens when the share is disabled or whether body fields are optional, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does so for the key parameter: regenerate is explained as issuing a new token and invalidating the old link. It also clarifies that no projectId is needed for the path. It leaves 'enabled' unexplained, but that field is largely self-evident, so the gap is minor.

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 names a specific verb (更新/update) and resource (失物招领公开分享 / lostfound public share) and identifies the underlying endpoint PUT /api/projects/{id}/lostfound/share. It clearly distinguishes itself from the read counterpart anon_get_lostfound_share, though it never names a sibling explicitly, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 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?

It states the required permission lostfound:manage and the effect of regenerate=true, which are real usage constraints. However it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives against siblings like anon_put_stage_rundowns_rid_screen_share, so usage is only implied and conditional.

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