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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: writes affect the customer's staff config and take effect immediately, and it warns to confirm user intent first. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance annotations can't convey.

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 content is valuable but densely packed into one long run-on sentence with inline parentheses that is hard to parse. It is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted, but the structure could be cleaner with the schema doing more of the field enumeration.

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 2-param partial-update mutation with no output schema, the description covers the fields, the required params, the immediate-effect behavior, and the confirmation guidance. What remains missing is return behavior, though the absent output schema somewhat lowers that burden.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage and a free-form patch object, the schema alone is nearly useless. The description compensates heavily by enumerating every patchable field, its structure, and sub-keys, and confirms both slug and patch are required. It loses a point only because some nested field semantics (e.g., promotionConfig defaults) remain implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (局部修改/patch) and resource (岗位配置), and the description enumerates the exact patchable field structure. An agent can distinguish this from get_staff_config and set_staff_kbs without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'patch 只放要改的字段' constrains partial updates, and points to the set_staff_kbs alternative for the kbs field. It also advises reciting the change back before calling when unsure. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is strong.

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