记录发布结果

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it only updates the local ledger and makes no external API call. This clarifies the side-effect scope and avoids confusion with publishing tools, even though annotations already indicate a write, non-destructive 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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the boundary condition stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 local recording tool, the description covers the trigger, the core action, and the side-effect boundary. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the low complexity and lack of an output schema make this a minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by identifying externalPostId as the public note ID and implying draftId refers to a manually published draft. However, it does not explain the relationship between the two parameters or provide more detailed semantics for each field.

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 a specific verb and resource: after manual publishing, record the public note ID. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it only updates the local ledger and does not call Xiaohongshu, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 trigger condition: '人工发布后' (after manual publishing). It also implies when not to use it by stating it does not call Xiaohongshu, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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