eda_lib_classification_create_secondary

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

The description mentions deprecation and the version range (since v3.2, dropped v3.3), which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens on failure. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is largely a code signature.

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 brief, but it mixes a code signature, a Chinese phrase, and deprecation notes without clear formatting. It is not front-loaded with the most important info (deprecation), and the structure is disjointed.

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 deprecated tool, the description is missing critical information: what to use instead, whether it is safe to call, and what the return value means. It is a bare signature with a note, not enough for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema lists the parameters (libraryUuid, libraryType, primaryClassificationUuid, secondaryClassificationName) in the method signature, but the description does not explain their meaning or provide constraints beyond the types. Since schema coverage is 100% (the signature includes all params), the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal value.

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 includes a method signature and '创建二级分类' (create secondary classification), which indicates the action, but it is mostly a raw API dump. It does not clearly state that this tool is deprecated and should not be used, and it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool create_primary. The purpose is understandable but not well-communicated for an agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the deprecation notice, but it does not say what to use instead or whether to avoid it entirely. An agent has no idea if this should be called at all.

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