report_external_choice

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description's '记录' is consistent with a non-destructive, idempotent write. It adds the choice vocabulary but does not disclose side effects, such as whether a queued choice or immediate switch changes state beyond recording.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of options. There is 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?

The tool is simple, output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Still, the absence of explicit sibling differentiation and exact parameter formats leaves moderate gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does convey that 'reference' is the external reference and 'choice' is one of the three listed options. However, it does not specify exact accepted string values or the format of the reference.

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 '记录' and identifies the resource: the user's choice about an external reference, with three concrete alternatives. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus report_write_decision or review_queue_* tools. The intended context is implied by the phrase '用户对某个外部引用的选择', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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