PublishDataServiceApi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action 'publish' without explaining what publishing does (e.g., makes API publicly accessible, triggers deployment, requires specific permissions). It doesn't mention side effects, success/failure conditions, or what happens to the API state. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with just one phrase, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase '发布数据服务API' doesn't provide enough information to be helpful. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, failing to earn its place as a useful description.

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?

This is a mutation tool (publishing implies changing state) with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. The description doesn't explain what publishing means, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity of publishing an API and the lack of structured metadata, the description is completely inadequate.

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 100%, so all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId) are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '发布数据服务API' (Publish data service API) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'PublishDataServiceApi'. It provides the verb 'publish' and resource 'data service API', but doesn't specify what publishing entails (making it live, deploying it, activating it) or what happens when published. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'CreateDataServiceApi' or 'SubmitDataServiceApi'.

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 versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a created API first), sequencing (e.g., use after creation/testing), or distinctions from similar tools like 'SubmitDataServiceApi' or 'AbolishDataServiceApi'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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