create_draft

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions '前置校验' (pre-validation) and '自动回读验证' (automatic read-back verification). This gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's execution flow than the raw annotations alone, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object, then adds the two key behavioral traits. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the sparse input schema and rich domain complexity (WeChat-style image-text drafts), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'pre-validation' checks, what fields each article object requires, or what the read-back verification returns or reports. The presence of an output schema helps for return values, but input construction remains largely unguided.

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?

The schema provides only an array of opaque objects with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that these objects represent one or more image-text drafts and that the array can hold multiple items, but it does not compensate for the lack of item-level field definitions, required properties, or structure. An agent still does not know how to construct a valid 'articles' object.

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 action ('create'), the resource ('image-text drafts'), and the batch nature ('one or more'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_draft and delete_draft by specifying creation of new drafts rather than modification or deletion.

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 implies this tool is for creating new drafts, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer sibling relationships from names alone.

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