发布腾讯文档收集表

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, already covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds the useful detail that it verifies the public version via a cookie-less read-back, which enriches the behavior beyond the annotations, but does not cover other behavioral aspects like preconditions or side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the primary action (立即发布当前草稿) followed by the verification step. It is appropriately sized and wastes little, though it could be marginally clearer on the publishing target.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, one of which is required, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. No output schema is provided, but the description notes the read-back behavior, which partly compensates. Minor gaps remain in usage conditions relative to siblings.

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 coverage is 100%; both form_url and response_format are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (发布/publish) and resource (当前草稿/the current draft form), and adds a behavior: re-reading the public version without auth cookies. The distinction from sibling tencent_docs_build_and_publish_form is implied (this publishes an existing draft) but not explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 '当前草稿' (current draft) implies the tool applies to an already-created draft, which is circumstantial usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-the-siblings guidance (e.g., vs. tencent_docs_build_and_publish_form), so it remains implied rather than stated.

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