douyin_publish_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the single most important trait: without confirm the tool publishes nothing and only returns a plan. It also scopes what the returned plan contains (account, assets, title, body, tags, publish time). It does not cover auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens if plan_id is stale, so it falls short of a 5.

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 critical constraint (does not publish without confirm) is front-loaded in bold, and every sentence serves the confirmation protocol. Slightly long, and the closing '不要自己替用户决定发布' partially restates the earlier consent requirement, but overall tight for a high-risk write tool.

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 14-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary behavioral contract and explicitly enumerates the plan fields the agent will receive, compensating for the missing output schema. Remaining gaps (auth, error handling) are moderate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for the confirm/plan_id pair: it explains the idempotent two-step reuse of plan_id and that the plan must be echoed to the user first. Other parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 ('发布一条抖音视频') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling douyin_publish_note (note vs. video). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase protocol: call without confirm to get a plan, read the plan back to the user verbatim, obtain explicit consent, then re-call with the same plan_id and confirm=true. It also states what NOT to do (don't decide for the user, don't skip confirmation). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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