upload_book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two-step prepare-then-PUT protocol, that the returned link is where the full file goes, that refresh_ticket only updates authorization, and that files must never be passed through MCP. It stops short of covering failure modes, size limits, or ticket expiry.

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?

It is dense and front-loads the 'prepare' action, with each semicolon-delimited clause carrying distinct information (params, metadata rule, PUT step, refresh action, prohibition). The mixed Chinese/English phrasing is slightly awkward for an English-only agent, but there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately describes the workflow and the file-transfer prohibition, but leaves sha256 and several parameter meanings undocumented for a 10-parameter tool, so it is not fully complete.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it names most of them (request_id, title, filename, size_bytes, required_format, task_id, authors, language) plus the action values. It does not explain what sha256 is for, what request_id represents, or acceptable format values, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 conveys a two-phase upload workflow ('prepare' to get a link, then PUT the file), so the resource and action are inferable. However, it never plainly states in a single clause that the tool uploads a book file to the library, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like acquire_book or get_download_url. Purpose is understandable but under-framed.

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 clearly routes between the two actions: 'prepare' lists the parameters to supply, while 'refresh_ticket' is used with task_id to refresh authorization. It also adds a hard usage constraint ('禁止通过 MCP 传文件或任意服务端路径'), which tells the agent what not to attempt. What's missing is any explicit comparison to sibling tools or a stated 'when not to use' condition.

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