Register Content Rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose upsert semantics ('注册或更新'), which is useful, but says nothing about whether an invocation replaces the whole ruleset or merges into existing rules, what happens to omitted sections, whether permissions or an active project are required, or that this is a mutation. For a write tool with nested configuration objects, that is a significant gap.

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 tight sentence with the key action front-loaded and the three domains in parentheses as an efficient scannable summary. It is not padded, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 four-parameter nested-object mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine merge-vs-replace behavior, required context, or the meaning of most fields from this alone.

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 four parameters, two of which are nested objects with enums (formality, humor_level, allow_ai_on_status). The description names three of the four parameter domains but adds no meaning about allowed values, interaction between sections, or the role of project_id, which is entirely unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb pair (注册/更新) and the resource (项目内容圣经) plus the three domains it governs (基调/合规/草稿策略), which map to the top-level schema keys. It is distinguishable from the crowded register_* family (register_entity, register_fact, register_flag) by naming content rules specifically, though it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling check_scene_against_rules, which consumes exactly this data.

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 when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. In a project where check_scene_against_rules and validate_project depend on these rules, the agent gets no hint about when these rules must be in place or whether they are required before other operations.

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