create_newspic_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It goes beyond basics by stating the success return structure, the 1-20 image limit, the ordering behavior, the plain-text nature of content, and that images are uploaded via the permanent material interface and assembled in order. This gives an agent a strong mental model of what invoking the tool does.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose and return format come first, followed by a concise parameter list and a clarifying note about the difference from news messages. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter draft creation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters with constraints, return format, and behavioral nuances. It also addresses the sibling distinction. Nothing essential for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: title is required, images allows 1-20 items with local file path or http(s) URL and ordering, content is optional plain text (explicitly not HTML). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '创建图片消息草稿' (create image message draft), which clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the related '图文消息' (news/image-text) concept, helping an agent differentiate it from sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context by contrasting with 图文消息: it explicitly notes that image message content is plain text and the images are in the images parameter, which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool (create_news_draft) or state a direct 'use this when, use that instead' rule, so it falls just short of fully explicit guidance.

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