yuque_import_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the internal pipeline (fetch page, extract readable content, create doc), which is meaningful behavioral context, but omits permissions/auth needs, whether the doc is draft or published, duplicate handling, and error behavior for unfetchable pages.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the pipeline follows compactly. The trailing Chinese reference '详见 references/api/extended_api.md' is cryptic and points to an external file rather than adding inline value, which slightly weakens an otherwise tight definition.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it defers detail to an external markdown reference instead of stating auth requirements, result shape, or failure modes. Too much must be inferred before a correct call.

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 all five parameters (url, paths, title, format, book_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (import content from a web URL into Yuque) and follows with the processing pipeline (fetches page, extracts readable content, creates doc). This is clearly distinguishable from yuque_import_file (file-based) and yuque_create_doc (blank creation), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like yuque_embed_url or yuque_import_file. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the URL-import path versus file import or embedding.

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