send_subscribe_message

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the behavioral requirement of explicit confirmation, which is beyond the annotations and important for safe invocation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, for a tool with six parameters and nested data, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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 six parameters, no schema descriptions, and a nested data object, the description does not cover prerequisites, parameter semantics, or behavioral context. Even with an output schema present, an agent lacks enough information to invoke this tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the confirm parameter via 'must explicitly confirm'. It gives no meaning for openid, template_id, data, page, or miniprogram, so an agent cannot correctly construct arguments from the description alone.

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 '发送订阅通知' states a clear verb and resource: sending a subscription notification. It is distinguishable from sibling send_template_message/send_custom_message by the subscription-notification domain, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only usage guidance is '必须显式确认' (must explicitly confirm), which is a useful precondition but does not explain when to choose this tool over send_template_message, send_custom_message, or the mass-message tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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