发布草稿

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, it discloses the concrete consequence (content becomes externally visible), the side-effect boundary (no fan push, no quota consumption), and that execution is asynchronous with a publish_id returned. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short clauses ordered by importance: what happens, what the side effects are, how to retrieve the result, and when to invoke. No redundancy or filler.

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 an async mutation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the effect, the async return value (publish_id), and the polling tool needed to resolve the outcome. Nothing required for 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines media_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for it, which matches the baseline-3 expectation.

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?

"将草稿提交发布" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the exact effect (publicly visible, no push to followers, no mass-send quota used). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like wechat_create_draft and wechat_get_publish_status.

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 gives both an explicit trigger ("仅在用户明确要求发布时调用") and the follow-up path (poll with wechat_get_publish_status), naming the sibling tool and its role. An agent knows both when to call and what to do next.

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