item_publish

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals useful behavioral details: automatic category recognition, use of default address, and price unit in yuan. However, it does not disclose mutation implications, permission requirements, or failure semantics, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then adds parenthetical context. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of 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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits critical operational context such as required authentication, error behavior, and how auto-detection interacts with provided inputs. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with usage semantics.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions that price is in yuan. It fails to explain the meaning of title, desc, images, delivery modes, post_price, original_price, or can_self_pickup, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 '发布商品' (publish item) as the verb and resource, and adds specific context (auto-category recognition, default address, price unit) that helps distinguish it from siblings like item_delete or item_get. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or that category and location are auto-handled, which would help an agent decide to use this instead of calling category_recommend or location_default separately.

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