mfuns_create_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: content is plain text and auto-converted to forum format, and the feed is visible site-wide. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether edits are allowed, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a brief intro and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is slightly repetitive with the parameter names but not wasteful.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. It lacks explicit usage guidance and differentiation from sibling tools, but given the low complexity, it is mostly complete. The visibility scope and auto-conversion note add helpful context.

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?

The input schema provides only types and defaults (0% description coverage), so the description steps in. It explains that 'content' is plain text auto-converted to forum format, 'images' are URL lists, and 'tags' are limited to 10. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it could be more detailed about formats or constraints.

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 a specific action ('发布动态' / publish feed) and resource ('Feed，全站动态流可见' / Feed visible across the site), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mfuns_create_post by emphasizing the feed stream visibility, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies usage for publishing a feed with optional images and tags, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mfuns_create_post or mfuns_publish_video. There are no exclusion criteria or explicit context/conditions.

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