add_delay_live_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool sets up delayed live streaming but doesn't describe whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it affects ongoing streams, rate limits, or error conditions. The return value '请求ID' (request ID) is noted but without context on how to use it. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses minimal words to convey the core function. However, the front-loaded purpose statement is very brief ('设置延时直播') and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with 5 parameters. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions), doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal guidance. The return value is mentioned but without detail on format or usage. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with examples and constraints. The description lists parameters but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool '设置延时直播' (sets up delayed live streaming), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'resume_delay_live_stream' or explain what differentiates 'add' from 'resume' in this context. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resume_delay_live_stream' or 'forbid_live_stream'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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