提交人工审核

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

Annotations only express readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints as false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it changes draft status to pending review, may set a scheduled publish time, and does not publish externally. This is valuable context not available in the schema.

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?

One short sentence conveys the core action, optional scheduling capability, and a safety clarification with no filler. It is front-loaded and every clause 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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it avoids, and the optional scheduling parameter. It could add post-submit expectations or status outcomes, but the essential invocation context is present.

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. '可同时安排发布时间' clarifies scheduledAt's role and optionality, but draftId receives no semantic explanation beyond its schema name and format.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: '把本地草稿标为待审核' (mark local draft as pending review). It also explicitly states '不会对外发布' (will not publish externally), which distinguishes it from publishing or approval siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: use when a local draft should transition to pending review, optionally with a scheduled publish time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though '不会对外发布' gives an implicit exclusion from publication tools.

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