post_character_collection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of side effects, idempotency, or conflict handling. For a write operation, more transparency is needed.

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?

A single sentence of 7 words (in Chinese) is very concise. No filler. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness; a bit more detail could be included without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose. But it lacks context about the nature of 'collecting' (e.g., adding to favorites, toggling) and what the output represents. Adequate but not complete.

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 100% (the only parameter 'character_id' has description '角色ID'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No extra context like format or constraints is provided.

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 '为当前用户收藏角色' (collect character for current user) clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific enough to identify the action, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'post_person_collection'. The title is null, so description carries the full burden.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion scenarios. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and similar tools like 'post_my_collection' or 'post_collection'.

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