add_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content format (Markdown), title fallback logic, and fixed source value. However, it omits details like return value, error behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide derivations and constraints. Every clause carries information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, the standalone scope, title behavior, and fixed source. It doesn't explain return value or edge cases, but the schema's idempotency_key description covers retry semantics, making it 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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies that title is optional and auto-derived from content (frontmatter > H1 > truncated first line), and that content_md is Markdown. The idempotency_key parameter is already well-described in the schema, so no duplication is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('上架' = publish) and a specific resource ('Markdown 文档'), and explicitly states it is not attached to any course/lesson, distinguishing it from add_lesson and update_document. It also clarifies title auto-derivation and fixed source, making the tool's function 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?

The description clearly states the document is standalone ('不挂靠任何 course/lesson'), implying use for free-standing materials rather than course-linked lessons. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'new document' and 'not attached' constraints provide clear contextual boundaries relative to sibling tools.

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