Create an experience draft

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuine behavioral disclosure – the draft is declarative, describes only capabilities and boundaries, and does not execute user code – which is valuable safety context, but it omits authorization requirements, draft persistence/lifecycle, and what the caller receives back.

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 tight sentences that are front-loaded with the action and follow with the key constraint. No filler, though the second sentence partly restates the safety framing already implied by '声明式模板'.

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?

With 5 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and safety stance but does not indicate what a successful call returns (draft id, status) or how the draft is subsequently used. Adequate but with clear gaps for a creation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The line '只描述能力和边界,不执行用户提供的代码' reinforces the requested_capabilities semantics ('希望使用的能力名称,而不是可执行代码'), adding a little meaning, but the remaining parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 verb and resource: generating a private ('私人') experience draft from a declarative template. The 'private' qualifier usefully separates it from public-create siblings like create_public_topic, though it does not name any alternative directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never explains how this draft relates to the launch flow (prepare_experience_launch, launch_experience) that sibling tools imply, so the agent must infer the sequencing entirely.

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