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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a key validation rule ('传入的更新字段不能为空'), but does not cover permissions, reversibility, error handling, or response format. The single constraint is useful but minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with two clauses: the verb+resource and the key constraint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the core behavior and a notable constraint, but lacks details on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or expectations for the update fields. The schema handles parameter descriptions, yet the overall context feels incomplete for an update operation.

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 100%, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond referencing the ID and update fields. It merely restates the concept already present in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool modifies education experience ('修改教育经历') by education ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add-edu-exp and other modify-* tools by targeting education experience specifically.

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 usage for updating existing education records by ID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for adding new records) or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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