qzone_publish

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful operational prerequisite — it is disabled by default and requires a config flag plus a service restart — which is genuinely useful context not found in the schema. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what a successful publish returns.

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 with the most decision-relevant fact ([当前禁用]) front-loaded, followed by the exact remediation step. Nothing is padded, though the space saved comes at the cost of omitting any actual purpose or parameter detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is thin: it explains why the tool cannot be used but not what it does when enabled. The disabled state is the most important fact and is covered, which keeps this above a 1.

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 description was expected to explain the two parameters, yet neither 'content' nor 'images' (up to 9 items) is mentioned. The only implicit hint is that '说说' involves text. An agent learns nothing about content length limits, image URL format, or whether images are required.

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 labels the resource ('发表说说', i.e. publish a Qzone status) but never states the operation in a self-contained way; its dominant content is a disabled notice. An agent can guess this tool publishes a post, but it cannot distinguish its exact scope from siblings such as qzone_comment or qzone_see_posts from this text alone.

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?

It gives strong negative guidance: the tool is 当前禁用, and enabling it requires an admin to set publishEnabled: true and restart the service, which effectively tells the agent not to call it. However, it offers no alternative for the same goal (no routing to a sibling tool) and no description of when the enabled tool should be chosen.

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