替换腾讯文档收集表题目

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

Adds context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true already covers the replace semantics): the creator/admin authorization requirement and the post-call read-back that verifies title, question order, and question type. This read-back/verification behavior is a meaningful trait not captured by any structured field.

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 tight sentences: the action and its non-publishing limit are front-loaded, followed by the permission constraint and the verification behavior. No filler.

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?

Authorization, non-publication, and read-back verification are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main residual gap is what happens to data on the existing form (full overwrite vs merge), which is relevant for a destructive replace.

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 67% and the nested $defs (FormSpec, QuestionSpec, enum types) are well documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 for schema-doing-the-work 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 and resource: '完整替换一份已存在的腾讯文档收集表题目' (completely replace the questions of an existing form). The clause '但不发布' (but does not publish) cleanly distinguishes it from the publish_form and build_and_publish_form siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Establishes usage context ('已存在' = must already exist) and a hard precondition ('只允许创建者或管理员执行'). The '但不发布' note implicitly routes the caller elsewhere to publish, but no sibling is named explicitly as an alternative for that next step, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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