Post in a public discussion room

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — posted content enters a public moderation queue, so delivery may be gated — but omits permission/auth requirements, whether posts can be edited or deleted, and any rate limits.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the moderation caveat. It is terse rather than padded, though it is arguably too sparse for a three-parameter write 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?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description should do more. It covers the notable moderation-queue behavior but leaves actor identity, room resolution, and the response contract entirely unexplained.

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% across three required parameters, and the description compensates for none of it: it never explains what actor_id identifies, how room_id is obtained, or that body is capped at 2000 characters. The purpose sentence only loosely implies room and message.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (发言/post) and resource (公开讨论房间/public discussion room), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like create_public_topic or join_public_room. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those siblings, but the action is 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?

Usage is implied by the verb-plus-room framing, and the closing clause '当前不提供私信' rules out the private-messaging case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over create_public_topic or join_public_room, and no prerequisites for posting are given.

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