wb_idea_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring confirm:true ('写操作须 confirm:true'), that it bypasses AI classification, and that title defaults to the first 30 characters of raw. It does not describe return behavior, but the key side-effect and safety gate are covered.

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 whole description is one compact, front-loaded line: purpose first, CLI mapping second, parameters and safety third. There is no filler; the CLI reference is brief and potentially useful for users familiar with the CLI.

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 simple three-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient to call it correctly: raw is required, title is optional with a defined default, and confirm must be true. The only notable omission is what the tool returns after success, which is secondary for such a direct add operation.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter list largely restates the schema: raw is required, title has a default, and confirm is a safety gate. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though the raw* marker is a useful summary.

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 opens with '直录 AI 点子（不经 AI 判类）', using a specific verb (直录) and resource (AI 点子), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from an AI-classification workflow. The '对应 CLI：idea add' further anchors the operation.

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 parenthetical '不经 AI 判类' gives clear context: use this tool when an idea should be recorded directly without AI categorization, and not when classification is desired. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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