发表评论 / 回复

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true/openWorldHint=true/non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a preview-by-default flow gated behind confirm=true, and the fact that comments become public content. It doesn't describe auth requirements or return format, but materially clarifies the write behavior.

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?

Compact, front-loaded Chinese prose that states the primary action first, then image/ reply options, then the crucial publish gate. Every clause carries information; 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 7-parameter, 1-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical context (preview default, confirm gate, public visibility, reply semantics). Auth/permission specifics are the only notable omission, mostly implied by openWorldHint.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters (root, parent, video, dynamic_id, confirm, message, image_paths). The description mainly restates root/parent usage and the confirm gate; it adds only marginal relational meaning over the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (发表评论) and resource (video/dynamic comment), and notes reply capability via root/parent. It is clearly a write/create tool, not a read tool like video_comments, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly to differentiate itself.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: default is preview-only and confirm=true is required to actually publish, plus root/parent to reply. That is clear operational guidance, but it does not contrast against alternatives (e.g., post_dynamic or send_message) or state when a plain comment is preferable.

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