生成并发布腾讯文档收集表

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: it replaces ALL current questions, and it performs an unauthenticated request to verify the public version. The destructive scope is disclosed in prose, which is valuable beyond the boolean hint.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation sequence and then the intended scenario. Nothing is wasted, although the second sentence's quotation of a user phrase is slightly loose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive multi-step tool the description adequately covers the operation sequence and the replace-all scope, leaving only minor gaps around per-step failure behavior.

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 75%, so the schema already documents form_url, anonymous, and response_format, including the anonymous-vs-login nuance. The description only echoes '保存匿名设置' and adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the 3 baseline appropriate.

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 composite verb set (replace questions, save anonymous setting, publish, verify public version) against a concrete resource (Tencent Docs collection form). It distinguishes itself as the 'complete workflow' variant, implying it differs from the narrower siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'适用于"建好后直接给我可预览链接"的完整流程' clearly states the usage context that selects this tool over the step-by-step siblings. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. telling the agent to use replace_form_questions or publish_form when only one step is wanted.

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