zhihu_draft_answer

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

With only minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description provides rich behavioral context: draft vs. publish, manual review requirement, plain-text line-break formatting, strict rate limits (≥60s interval, ≤3/hour), and overwrite-prevention refusal. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and failures.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then covers publishing semantics, formatting, rate limits, and refusal conditions in four dense sentences. Every sentence adds useful, non-redundant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the tool's behavior for selection and invocation: what it writes, how publishing works, formatting rules, rate limits, and refusal conditions. No important behavioral aspect is left ambiguous.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the text format and publish default but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: '把纯文本写入指定知乎问题的回答编辑器' (write plain text into the answer editor of a specified Zhihu question). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zhihu_edit_answer by emphasizing draft-by-default behavior and refusing if an answer already exists.

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 clearly explains the default draft-only behavior, the publish=true option, and the refusal when an existing draft or answer is present, effectively implying use for new drafts. However, it does not explicitly name zhihu_edit_answer as the alternative for editing existing answers, so it falls just 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.