Add Custom Url Library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no statement about what the domains string format is, whether the name must be unique, whether existing entries conflict, whether the operation is additive or overwrites, or what permissions are 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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; a single tautological phrase carries no useful information for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation tool requiring two mandatory parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. The presence of an output schema only removes the need to explain return values, not the need to explain inputs and behavior.

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% across three parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. The critical ambiguity — whether 'domains' is a comma-separated list, newline-delimited, or a single domain — is left completely unresolved.

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 "添加自定义网址库" is a literal translation of the tool name 'add_custom_url_library', restating the title rather than specifying what the tool does. It gives no hint of how this differs from siblings like list_custom_url_library, delete_custom_url_library, or add_url_blacklist.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_url_blacklist or add_domain_blacklist, which occupy adjacent functional space. The agent must infer entirely from the name.

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