bilibili_watch_later_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The '[互动写入]' tag reinforces that this mutates the user's account state, but adds little beyond the annotations and says nothing about what gets destroyed or whether re-adding is safe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a bracketed category tag and zero filler. Appropriately sized, though it could have used that brevity budget for one routing or prerequisite clause.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition should at minimum state the write-mode prerequisite and clarify the aid parameter. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the agent is left to infer both the required server flag and how to source 'aid'.

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 only 50%: 'confirm' is documented, but 'aid' has no description anywhere. The description does not explain what 'aid' is (the numeric video ID) or where an agent obtains it, so it fails to compensate 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 names a concrete verb+resource ('将视频加入稍后再看' = add video to Watch Later), which is immediately distinguishable from bilibili_watch_later_delete and bilibili_my_watch_later. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as bilibili_video_favorite or bilibili_my_watch_later, and no mention of the write-enabled service prerequisite (that lives only in the confirm parameter schema). Usage is inferable from the name alone.

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