qzone_prepare_publish

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: it does not actually post a status and it returns a short-lived confirmation token. It stops short of explaining token expiration handling or auth, but these are secondary for a prepare operation.

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 no filler: it front-loads the non-destructive nature, states the returned token, and names the next tool call. Everything is relevant and compact.

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 two-parameter preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and return token. It could mention token lifetime more specifically, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema names 'content' and 'images' are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify requirements like image count, format, or the optional/nullable default behavior.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it generates a publish preview rather than posting, and it names qzone_confirm_publish as the follow-up. This makes the tool's role unambiguous and distinguishes it from qzone_publish.

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 explicitly defines the tool as a preview-only preparation step and instructs the agent to call qzone_confirm_publish for confirmation. It does not enumerate all excluded siblings, but the workflow is clear enough for correct routing.

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