保存命盘记录

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool prompts the user before saving (with an example quote), requires a configured account, and results in records that can be loaded by name. It could mention duplicate/overwrite behavior, but the provided transparency is above average.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence includes a quoted prompt, which is actionable and not redundant. Every sentence contributes value.

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 save tool, the description covers the full workflow: saving, user confirmation, account requirement, and future loading. No output schema is present, but the outcome is clear. It lacks error handling details, but that's acceptable given the conversational context.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the name is used as a trigger phrase for future loads and gives the example '张三的八字', while data is described as the complete chart object. This exceeds the schema's bare descriptions.

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 action: 'save chart result as a named record' (把排盘结果保存为带名字的记录), and distinguishes it from siblings like record_list/record_load by explaining how the saved record can be loaded later via name. The verb 'save' and resource '命盘记录' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear trigger condition: after completing a chart (排完盘后), the agent should proactively ask the user if they want to save. It also notes the prerequisite of having a configured account. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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