create_share_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-fetches developer_id and app_id, returns template_code, enforces a 21 UTF-8 character limit on contents, and requires audit approval (status=1). The description does not explain error scenarios or side effects, but for a creation tool, it covers essential operational traits.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with bolded sections and front-loaded prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary context (prerequisite, creation purpose, auto-fetch, character limit, audit requirement). No redundancy, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and lacks annotations, the description covers the input process, return (template_code), and critical constraints. It does not detail error handling or the audit process, but for a creation tool with clear steps, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: explains auto-fill for optional IDs, notes that remark is internal and not shown to users, provides an example for contents, and emphasizes the strict character limit. This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a new share template on TapTap server for minigame sharing feature.' It specifies the resource (share template) and action (create), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_share_templates or get_share_template_info by emphasizing creation and the resulting template_code used in client-side API.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'An app MUST be selected first' and provides step-by-step guidance on verifying selection and guiding the user. It also notes important constraints (audit approval, character limit). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, which would elevate the score to 5.

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