bilibili_video_send_danmaku

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 that the tool sends a danmaku but does not mention side effects (e.g., public posting), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the '发送结果' (send result) contains. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with a one-line summary ('发送弹幕'), followed by a concise bullet-style Args list. Each parameter gets a single line with meaning and default. No unnecessary information or repetition exists, making it easy to scan.

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 description thoroughly covers parameters but is incomplete in other respects. It has no output schema and only says 'Returns: 发送结果' without specifying the result structure or error cases. It also omits authentication needs and any behavioral side effects. For a write operation with multiple parameters, this is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: bvid is the BV number, message is the content, page_num starts from 0, progress is in milliseconds, color is hex with a default, font_size has three options, and mode maps 1/4/5 to scrolling/bottom/top. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the enum/defaults in the schema, enabling correct invocation.

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 clearly states '发送弹幕' (send danmaku), specifying the exact action and resource (a Bilibili video). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bilibili_video_get_danmaku, which retrieves danmaku, and bilibili_comment_send, which sends comments. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or when not to use it. The only implied usage is 'when you want to send a danmaku,' but there are no explicit comparisons to sibling tools such as bilibili_comment_send or bilibili_video_interact.

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