提审抖音项目（危险）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important safety behavior: default-deny and the confirm=true trigger. Still, it does not describe side effects, persistence of the submission, auth requirements, or what happens once the remote review is triggered.

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 short, front-loaded with the tool's origin, and then states the key trigger condition without filler. It is compact and readable, though a dangerous tool could reasonably carry a bit more operational detail.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and six parameters, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It explains the confirm gate but omits expected return behavior, side-effect risks, and any setup or preconditions, so an agent is left guessing on several important points.

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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning for confirm by explaining the trigger condition, but host, channel, timeoutMs, autoPublish, and even appid are left unexplained beyond their names and schema types.

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 states it is a safe wrapper around the official tma audit and explicitly says confirm=true triggers remote submission, which matches the title '提审抖音项目'. It is clear about the core action, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings.

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 a critical usage condition: the tool defaults to denial and only acts when confirm=true. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like douyin_open_project or douyin_tmg_open, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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