mfuns_publish_video

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains category_id fallback behavior, copyright default meanings, and tag limits, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or error behavior, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 compact: one opening sentence plus a bulleted Args list. Each parameter entry provides essential information without redundancy, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 publish tool with 7 params and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, and usage constraints. Since the output schema exists, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable, making the description contextually complete.

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 0%, yet the description meticulously documents all 7 parameters with constraints (e.g., title max 30 chars, video_url https, category leaf behavior, copyright codes, tags max 10). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 '外链视频投稿' (external link video submission) with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from local upload by noting '不含本地上传'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like mfuns_create_post or mfuns_manage_submission.

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?

It provides explicit context: '如复活失效的 B 站外链视频' (e.g., reviving invalid Bilibili external link videos) and an explicit exclusion '不含本地上传'. This gives clear when-to and when-not-to use guidance, though no alternative tool is named.

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