发布动态

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new traits: the default preview/dry-run behavior and the public visibility of the content, which the annotations do not convey. Return format is not described but that is minor here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the critical preview-vs-publish distinction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and safety already handled by annotations, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the confirm gate and the public nature of the content. Only the lack of any return/preview-result explanation keeps it from being 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 100%, so the schema already documents text length, confirm semantics, and image count/format. The description echoes the same concepts (text, optional local image paths, confirm) without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource — publish a dynamic with text and optional local image paths — and clarifies that the resulting content is public. Clear enough that an agent understands the action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby posting siblings like post_comment or send_message.

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?

Explains the core workflow: by default only a preview is produced, and confirm=true is required to actually publish. This gives clear operational context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites (auth, account) apply.

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