collect_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that authorization is required, which is a useful trait, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, or the nature of the mutation (e.g., creating a bookmark, adding to a collection). For a state-changing operation, this is insufficient 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It front-loads the action and includes the key prerequisite (authorization). There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to parse quickly, making it an excellent example of conciseness and structure for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not explain what happens after collection, whether it can be undone, or how it relates to other features like recommendations or pins. While not critically incomplete for such a simple operation, it could provide more context to fully orient the agent.

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 fully documents the single parameter article_id, with 100% description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter is straightforward, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 '收藏文章' (collect/favorite article) clearly identifies the action verb and target resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like like_article or get_articles, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction, which is required for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note, '需要授权' (authorization required), is a precondition rather than a usage directive. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to other tools, so it falls at 'no guidance'.

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