import_wechat_article

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

The description explicitly discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: it does not execute scripts and does not request cookies ('不执行脚本、不索取Cookie'), and it marks the imported data as a caller-side snapshot ('标记为调用方快照'). This is valuable behavioral context, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is compact and every sentence carries meaning: what to import, the source/precondition, safety constraints, and when to use it. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers the key use case, constraints, and side-effect marking, but it omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and what happens if the provided HTML is invalid or incomplete. Given there is no output schema or parameter descriptions, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the HTML content structure and never explains what `url`, `html`, or especially `partial` mean. The parenthetical content clarifies part of the HTML payload but leaves parameter semantics largely under-specified.

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 ('导入' / import), a specific resource ('本人或AI浏览器已正常打开的文章HTML'), and the exact contents expected (标题、账号、时间、#js_content). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_wechat_article or get_saved_article, which handle different retrieval or storage paths.

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 description gives a concrete trigger: use it when HTTP requests require verification ('可在HTTP要求验证后使用') and when the article HTML is already open in a browser. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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