unmark_comment_elect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description only restates the core operation ('取消') and adds no behavioral details such as side effects, failure modes, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 extremely short and contains no filler words. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices useful explanatory structure, so it earns a solid but not perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with three required parameters and zero parameter documentation. It does not state what the operation affects, how the parameters identify the target comment, or what happens on success or failure.

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 does not explain any of the three required parameters. While parameter names hint at meaning, the relationship between msg_data_id, index, and user_comment_id is unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to populate them correctly.

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 '取消评论精选' clearly states the action: unmark/cancel a comment's featured status. Combined with the tool name and sibling mark_comment_elect, the purpose is specific and distinguishable, though it does not elaborate on the resource scope.

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 about when to use this tool versus mark_comment_elect or any other comment-related tool. The sibling list implies an inverse relationship, but the description itself provides no explicit usage context or conditions.

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