yearning_post_comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write. Description adds the API endpoint but no additional behavioral details (e.g., whether comments are appended, permissions required). It adequately confirms the write nature without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences in Chinese front-load the purpose. Efficient but could be more structured with explicit sections. No redundancy.

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 write tool with output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and API mapping but lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuance. Given low complexity, it meets the baseline but has clear gaps.

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 0%, requiring description to compensate. Description only restates the overall purpose without adding meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('评论内容', '工单号'). It provides no extra detail like format constraints or examples.

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?

Description clearly states the action (post comment) and resource (work order), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yearning_order_comments which list comments. The verb '发表' and resource '工单' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage for posting comments on work orders but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives. Context from sibling tool names provides indirect differentiation.

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