创建人物画像

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. '创建画像' implies creating a new record, and the description warns about duplicates, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read or write operation's safety profile, or any other behavioral traits beyond the duplicate handling.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then actionable guidance. Zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place - the first states the primary function, the second gives critical preconditions and fallback behavior.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation isn't needed. The description covers the key preconditions (check for duplicates), the merge fallback, and mentions the duplicateCandidates mechanism. Given the moderate complexity (5 params, all documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete. Could mention ideal fact categories or data quality but is adequate overall.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (name, facts, aliases, summary, relationship). The description adds the important context that 'duplicateCandidates' being non-empty signals potential duplicates, which clarifies the return/output semantics. However, it doesn't add much depth to individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide.

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?

Description clearly states the purpose: create a profile for a new person ('为一个新的人创建画像'). It names the specific verb+resource and lists the tool's primary function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_profiles, update_profile, and add_facts by explicitly naming them.

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?

Excellent usage guidance. It explicitly instructs to check search_profiles first to confirm no existing profile, and tells the agent what to do when duplicateCandidates is non-empty: switch to update_profile/add_facts to merge. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives.

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