提交 SQL 工单

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

Adds context beyond annotations: mentions the API endpoint POST /api/v2/common/post and requires confirm=true to truly submit, implying a confirmation guard. It doesn't contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false, and adds the pre-check recommendation.

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?

Four short sentences each add value: purpose, pre-check recommendation, API mapping, and confirm requirement. No redundant text, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description plus schema provides enough to invoke: confirm requirement and all parameters are documented. It omits return value but no output schema exists; still, for a mutation tool with 11 params, it is reasonably complete.

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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description only highlights confirm=true, which is already in the schema, adding no new 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?

Description clearly states it submits SQL work orders for DDL/DML, using the verb '提交' (submit) and resource 'SQL工单'. It distinguishes from sibling yearning_submit_query_order by specifying DDL/DML, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 recommends running yearning_sql_check before submission and mandates confirm=true for actual submission. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives like yearning_submit_query_order.

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