share_to_published

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '创建' (create) implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the article already exists, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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?

For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (success/failure responses, return values), doesn't mention any constraints or side effects, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters (title, url, content) with Chinese descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 the action ('创建一篇文章' - create an article) and the target resource ('到已发布 (Published) 源中' - to the Published source), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'update_article' or 'get_article' that might also work with articles.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_article' or 'search_articles' that might also handle article-related operations.

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