qzone_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses hard rate limits (once per post per 24h, 3/hour, 10/day) and content constraints (≤120 characters, CQ codes forbidden). These are non-obvious operational rules that would otherwise cause silent failures; only auth requirements and return behavior are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mode requirements, then hard constraints — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is telegraphic and slightly terse (e.g. '需要 target_uin + tid + content' compresses a conditional into an apparent requirement), but every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: which parameters pair with which mode and the quotas that will reject calls. It does not describe the success response or how quota violations surface as errors, which leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it groups parameters by mode (target_uin + tid + content vs. the extra comment_id + comment_uin) and tells the agent where to source the comment ids. Minor issue: it lists target_uin as required while the schema marks it optional for one's own posts.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (评论某条说说) and immediately distinguishes the two modes: commenting on a post vs. replying to a comment (楼中楼). An agent can tell it apart from qzone_like/qzone_publish without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the conditional path: pass only tid + content normally, and add comment_id + comment_uin when replying to a comment. It even names the sibling tool that produces those ids (从 qzone_comments 拿), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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