wecom_tag

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only lists action names without explaining effects (e.g., creation, deletion, editing) or side effects. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or data safety.

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 extremely concise (one short line). However, it lacks proper structure and fails to front-load a clear purpose statement. The list format is compact but not well-organized for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool supports multiple sub-actions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what each action does, what parameters are expected, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). An agent would need additional information to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It enumerates possible action values (list_corp_tags, etc.) but does not explain the 'action' parameter's usage or the 'params' object's structure. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 lists possible actions (list_corp_tags, add_corp_tag, etc.) and states '客户标签' (customer tags), implying the tool covers management of customer tags. However, it does not explicitly state the overall purpose with a clear verb+resource structure, making it somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wecom_customer or wecom_group_chat. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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