sticker_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and discloses key traits: it is local memory, reused across sessions, and does NOT modify the official QQ note — a meaningful side-effect clarification. It omits any mention of response format or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and the preview prerequisite in a compact two-sentence block. Efficient, with only minor redundancy in restating schema limits.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation local-memory write tool, the description covers the essentials: what is recorded, that it is local and non-destructive to official data, the preview prerequisite, and field limits. Only the post-write response behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with examples and constraints. The description's character/count limits (note/usage ≤60, tags ≤6 each ≤12) merely repeat constraints already in the schema, adding little beyond baseline.

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 verb+resource: it records a sticker's meaning (note), emotion tags, and usage scenarios into local memory. This is clear and distinguishable, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling sticker_collect, so an agent might wonder about overlap with the collection tool.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite/alternative: brand-new online stickers must first be viewed via sticker_preview before recording. This is a concrete when-to-use rule, but it does not say when to prefer this over other siblings like sticker_find or sticker_list.

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