zhiqi_accept_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the post is set to solved=true and the accepted replier receives ACCEPTED_ANSWER, which are the key observable side effects. It does not mention failure modes or idempotency, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action, then adds the permission constraint, then lists the side effects. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what action is performed, who can perform it, and what effects will occur. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but these are not critical for a straightforward accept action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so indirectly: '求助帖' maps to postId and '某条回复' maps to replyId, and the kind=HELP constraint adds meaning about the post. However, it never explicitly explains the parameters or their relationship, leaving some inference 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 identifies a specific verb ('采纳' / accept), a specific resource ('求助帖的某条回复' / a reply under a help post), and the resulting state change (solved=true). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like zhiqi_answer and zhiqi_forum_reply.

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?

The description gives a clear precondition (only the author of a kind=HELP post or a human logged-in user can operate), which helps an agent decide whether it is allowed to call the tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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