发布短故事

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavioral traits: the confirm gate, the draft→next→publish pipeline, the real-name/face verification interrupt that halts and hands off to a human, and the 6000–80000 word-count constraint. It does not mention auth/login prerequisites despite the login_tomato sibling, leaving a small gap.

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?

Five compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the mode/confirm/verification/constraint details in priority order. No filler sentences; every clause carries operational information.

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 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the core operation thoroughly: modes, confirmation gating, pipeline stages, failure/interrupt behavior, and validation bounds. Remaining gaps are the auxiliary parameters (categories, cover_path, use_ai) and what a successful call returns.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description must add meaning, and it does: the item_id-alternates-with-title(+content) routing rule and the confirm=false/true semantics are behavioral routing that the schema alone does not state. It leaves use_ai, file_path, article_id, cover_path, and divided_chapters unexplained by either source.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (发布短故事) and immediately distinguishes the two supported operation modes: publishing an existing work via item_id versus creating-and-publishing via title(+content). This separates it cleanly from siblings like create_short_story_tomato and save_article.

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?

Gives explicit context for the two entry paths (item_id vs title+content) and the confirm=false preview versus confirm=true publish distinction, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for adjacent jobs (e.g. create_short_story_tomato for drafts), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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