bilibili_video_interact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter constraints (e.g., cancel only for like/favorite, coin_num valid for coin) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects on video interaction counts, or any potential irreversibility. This is a mutation tool with significant missing behavioral context.

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 structured with a one-line summary, a clear Args section with each parameter on its own line, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No redundant or vague 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?

The parameter coverage is excellent, but the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The return value is only described as '操作结果' (operation result), which is vague. Additionally, authentication prerequisites and potential error cases are not addressed, making the description incomplete for a mutation tool with 5 parameters.

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 contains only titles and no descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail: bvid as the video BV number, action with its enum meanings, cancel with its validity scope, coin_num with valid values (1 or 2), and media_id with its conditional requirement and default behavior.

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 opens with '视频互动：点赞/投币/收藏/三连' (video interaction: like/coin/favorite/triple), which clearly specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on user interactions rather than retrieval or sending danmaku.

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?

Usage is implied through the action types and parameter conditions, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bilibili_video_send_danmaku. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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