pls_create_anchor

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

The annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that a confirmation parameter is required and specifies the return format ({success, entity, action}). This confirms the write behavior but does not disclose additional traits beyond the annotations.

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 relatively short but includes a redundant parameter list that duplicates schema information. The key action is stated upfront, and the tip is concise. Some redundancy exists, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return format. However, for a creation tool with 8 parameters, it lacks information about required relationships (e.g., mapId may be needed) and whether coordinates are necessary. The tip 'only pass required fields' could be misleading since only confirm is required. Completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description does not add significant new information beyond the schema; it repeats the confirmation requirement and suggests only passing required fields. The baseline of 3 is warranted as the schema carries the burden.

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 '创建基站实体' (create anchor entity), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like pls_update_anchor and pls_delete_anchor by the create action. However, it does not elaborate on what an anchor is, but the tool name is self-explanatory.

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 offers a tip '确认+只传必填字段' (confirm + only pass required fields), which gives basic guidance. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pls_update_anchor or pls_delete_anchor, and does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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