qzone_confirm_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this action performs a real publish (not a dry run) and that the token is single-use and invalidated after one use, which is the key behavioral caveat. It stops short of explaining failure modes for an invalid/expired token.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and adds the critical single-use caveat. There is no filler or duplicated 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the token source, and token lifetime. It does not describe the expected return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the core invocation contract is adequately specified.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that the token comes from qzone_prepare_publish and becomes invalid after a single use. This gives the only parameter, confirmation_token, meaningful semantics beyond the plain string type in the schema.

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 states the exact action: use the token returned by qzone_prepare_publish to execute a real publish (执行一次真实发布). This clearly distinguishes it from the preparation step and from other Qzone operations.

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 explicitly names qzone_prepare_publish as the source of the confirmation token, so the expected precondition is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with qzone_publish or state when to prefer this two-step flow over direct publishing, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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