保存运营草稿

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it only writes local data, never accesses Xiaohongshu, and imposes a constraint that assetPaths must point to readable regular files. The contentHash note adds extra specificity about how file bytes are counted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no fluff. The contentHash mention is slightly cryptic given it's not in the input schema, so it doesn't fully earn its place, but overall the description is tight and efficient.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description states scope and a key constraint, but misses important operational details: whether it creates a new draft or overwrites an existing one, what the response contains, and how to reference the saved draft later. This leaves an agent with several practical unknowns.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies assetPaths (must be readable files) and mentions contentHash (not even a schema parameter). It leaves title, body, topics, and campaign semantically unexplained; their meanings are left to inference from names.

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 names a specific action (save) and resource (content to local workspace), and immediately distinguishes itself from publishing/posting tools by stating it will not access or publish to Xiaohongshu. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like submit_for_review and create_publish_package.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to write content locally, not to publish or access external platforms. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the local-only boundary gives an agent enough guidance to route correctly among publishing siblings.

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