保存 / 更新本地文稿

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the storage target (data/articles.json), the return value (article_id), the upsert behavior, and crucially that updates only overwrite explicitly passed fields. It omits error/failure behavior and what defaults apply to unset fields on creation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the storage action and return value come first, followed by create/update rules and kind/content notes. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on paragraph with multiple parentheticals is slightly heavy.

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 9-parameter upsert tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and the return value. Minor gaps remain around required fields for creation and failure handling, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents kind, article_id semantics, and content/file_path exclusivity. The description mostly restates these, adding only the partial-overwrite nuance rather than new per-parameter meaning.

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 (把正文入库 to data/articles.json) and clearly explains the dual create/update nature based on whether article_id is passed. It doesn't name sibling tools (e.g. the remote add_chapter_qimao/update_chapter_qimao or get_article), so sibling differentiation is only implicit via the local-file mention.

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 concrete routing conditions: omit article_id to create, pass it to update; kind=chapter vs kind=short; content vs file_path. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to reach for when publishing remotely.

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