accept_new_friend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('accept new friend requests') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., notification to sender), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loads the purpose followed by a parameter list. Every element earns its place: the action, parameters, and their roles. It could be slightly more structured but avoids redundancy.

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's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after acceptance, error cases, or return values. For a friend-request acceptance tool in a chat system, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing all 4 parameters with brief Chinese explanations: content (required, friend request content), exact (default false, whether to match exactly), remark (optional, nickname), and tags (optional, tag list). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though details like format constraints are missing.

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 tool's purpose as '接受新的好友请求' (accept new friend requests), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_friend' (which likely initiates requests) and 'get_new_friends' (which likely retrieves pending requests). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 like 'add_friend' or 'get_new_friends'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., pending friend requests must exist), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The parameter list implies usage but offers no strategic guidance.

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