上传抖音项目（危险）

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns of remote side effects ('远程上传'), states the safety gate ('默认拒绝，必须 confirm=true 才会触发'), and clarifies that the version check is informational and non-blocking ('信息性，不阻断'). This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations reveal, though it could still mention rollback or failure-mode consequences.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The routing behavior is front-loaded, followed by the safety gating and the version-check nuance. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the confirm gate and a small portion of the routing logic. It does not describe the expected return format, the meaning of projectPath/appChangelog/channel, or what 'versionCheck' contains. For a dangerous remote-upload operation, this is incomplete.

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 the 9 parameters. It clarifies confirm and the minigame/regular routing, but it leaves required parameters like appChangelog and important ones like projectPath, channel, appVersion, copy, timeoutMs, and expectedProjectType undefined. This is a significant gap for a complex, dangerously action tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: '上传抖音项目' (upload Douyin project). It further distinguishes internal behavior by routing '小游戏走 tmg upload，其余走 tma upload', which removes ambiguity about what the tool actually does. No sibling tool appears to overlap with uploading, so the purpose is 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 gives clear operational context: by default uploads are rejected, and only confirm=true triggers the remote upload. It also explains project-type routing, helping the agent understand when the minigame path versus the general path applies. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for 'not uploading', but no sibling tool competes with this action, so the guidance is sufficient.

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