forbid_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. While '禁推' (forbid) implies a destructive/mutative action, the description doesn't clarify what 'forbid' actually means operationally - whether it stops streaming immediately, blocks future streams, requires specific permissions, or has irreversible consequences. The optional 'resume_time' parameter suggests this might be temporary, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. However, the purpose statement is overly terse ('禁推直播流' - just three characters in Chinese) and could benefit from slightly more elaboration about what 'forbid' entails. The structure is good but could be more informative in the opening statement.

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 destructive/mutative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does operationally, what permissions are required, what the consequences are, or what the return value '请求ID' (request ID) represents. The description leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that appears to modify live streaming state.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description lists parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 purpose as '禁推直播流' (forbid live stream), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'drop_live_stream' or 'forbid_live_domain', which appear to be related stream management operations. The purpose is clear 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drop_live_stream' or 'resume_live_stream'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases. The only implied usage is through the parameter descriptions, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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