投币

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those flags: a dry-run-by-default preview mode requiring confirm=true, and the irreversibility of coins with a warning to verify balance and quantity.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the action, then the preview/confirm rule, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries operational weight with 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key operational facts (dry-run default, confirm gate, irreversibility, balance check). Only the relationship to like_video/select_like is left unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (video, confirm, multiply, select_like) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the confirm gate and the 1-2 quantity without adding syntax or edge-case semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '给视频投 1-2 枚硬币' clearly names the action (coin a video) and its scope (1-2 coins). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the related sibling like_video even though the select_like parameter overlaps with that tool's purpose.

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?

Gives a useful operating rule ('默认只预览；confirm=true 才执行') so the agent knows the default is a preview and execution is opt-in. But it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, notably not routing the agent away from or toward like_video for the select_like case.

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