create_prop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious side effects: filling description automatically triggers setting-image generation, and billing is deferred ('后付'). It doesn't cover response format or error cases, but key behavioral context is present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the alternative and the side-effect note. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, it adequately covers purpose, relationship to the sibling extract_assets tool, and cost/side-effect behavior. It omits return behavior and failure modes, but those are relatively low-risk for this kind of creation tool.

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 71%, so most parameter meanings come from the schema. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral consequence of the description parameter, but it does not elaborate on type, prompt, or physical_size_hint beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: '往道具库加一个道具' (add a prop to the prop library). It also distinguishes this manual tool from the automatic extract_assets workflow, making its role clear.

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?

It explicitly names extract_assets as the automatic path and states this tool is for manual supplementary creation ('供手动补建'), giving an agent a clear when-to-use signal and an alternative.

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