create_short_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new short URL and lists supported features, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the return value looks like (no output schema). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that states the core purpose and lists key features. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from features.

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 mutation tool (creating resources) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool is inadequate given its complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description mentions the same parameters (custom domain, short code, title, description) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '创建一个新的短网址' (create a new short URL). It specifies the action (create) and resource (short URL), and lists supported features (custom domain, short code, title, description). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_create_short_urls, which creates multiple URLs at once.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like batch_create_short_urls for bulk operations or get_url_info for retrieving existing URLs. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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