新增预处理信息

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral details: the HTTP method is POST, membership is required, the unified response format is described, and the data returned is the newly created preprocessing ID. It could add more about possible failures or side effects, but it covers the essential behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the endpoint and purpose, then lists required parameters, then closes with the unified response shape. Every sentence earns its place without redundant fluff.

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 simple create endpoint with four required scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the membership prerequisite, all required inputs, and the response structure including the data field. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter meanings already present in the schema and adds only the '必填' markers and the contentType enum value, which are also inferable from the schema. It does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics.

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 '新增预处理' with the specific resource and endpoint 'POST /open/pre/add'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like open_pre_list, open_pre_detail, open_pre_edit, and open_pre_delete because it uniquely identifies the create operation.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool is for adding new preprocessing information and requires membership ('需会员'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the '新增' verb and the sibling tool names make the intended use obvious.

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