mkt_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: dry-run default, gating/pause/approval/ledger inheritance, the human-review prerequisite for go=true, and an explicit statement that no MCP bypass exists for UNVERIFIED channels. The main gap is the return/response behavior of a write action, which is left unstated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: scope, then valid values, then the dry-run/gating rule, then the CLI-only carve-out, then the email exclusion. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is tightly packed and could be split for readability.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the safety and gating model is covered thoroughly, but the parameter-to-action mapping is largely absent. An agent knows whether it may call the tool but not how to fill most of its inputs 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 coverage is only 15% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains channel, action, go, and routine. Nine parameters (url, text, title, extra, number, target, account, campaign, subreddit) are left with no semantic guidance in either the schema or the description, leaving an agent unsure how to supply them per action type.

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 opening '单条写动作' states a specific verb (write) and scope (single action), and the phrase '与队列同一套门禁/暂停/审批/账本' distinguishes it from the batch/queue sibling. The channel/action enumerations reinforce the resource, though they merely restate what the schema already constrains. It is clear what the tool does but does not name mkt_run_queue explicitly as the batch alternative.

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?

Explicitly states the default is dry-run and that go=true requires a human-reviewed plan or valid routine policy with routine=true, plus that UNVERIFIED channels cannot be run live via MCP. It also notes 'email only supports queue,' steering the agent away from this tool for that channel. Strong when/when-not guidance, though it does not name the specific sibling tool to use for the queue case.

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