item.publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: automatic category detection, default address usage, and price unit in yuan. However, it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, permissions, or any constraints beyond the basic publishing action.

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 and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. It is efficient as a one-line summary, but for an 8-parameter tool it offers very little structural breakdown to guide invocation.

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 parameter-rich publish tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this is not enough context. The description covers price units and automatic category/address handling, but leaves delivery options, image expectations, optional pricing fields, self-pickup behavior, and error conditions 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the price unit. The meanings of title, desc, images, delivery, post_price, original_price, and can_self_pickup are left entirely to their names and schema defaults.

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?

发布商品 directly states the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds distinctive behavior: automatic category detection and default address. This clearly separates item.publish from item.get/item.delete/item.mine/item.view.

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 implies the tool is appropriate when the category can be auto-detected and the default address is acceptable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like category.recommend or location.default. There is no exclusion guidance or explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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