创建发布交接包

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by stating it marks drafts as pending publication. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that the tool will not log in or call Xiaohongshu private APIs, which is useful safety information beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and target state, and the second sentence adds a valuable non-behavior guarantee. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with annotations and a clear sibling context, the description covers the prerequisite state, the resulting state, and a key external-behavior guarantee. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the operation is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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%, and the description does not explain either draftId or expectedContentHash. '已批准草稿' loosely implies draftId, but the purpose and computation of expectedContentHash are left entirely to the parameter name, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the operation: '生成结构化交接包' and '标记为待发布' for approved drafts. It identifies the resource and action, and the target state '已批准草稿' distinguishes it from review or approval tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase '为已批准草稿' tells the agent this tool should be used after approval and before actual publication. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings like record_publication.

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