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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that update fields cannot be empty, but does not mention whether it is a partial update, what happens if the ID does not exist, permissions required, or return format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant lack of transparency, justifying a score of 2.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately stating the key constraint. Every sentence contributes value with no wasted words, meeting the 5 criterion.

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 11 parameters but all are fully described in the schema, and the description gives the core usage. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks information about response behavior, error scenarios, and whether it performs partial or full replacement. It is minimally adequate but not rich enough for a 4, hence a 3.

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 all parameters are defined. The description adds a valuable cross-cutting constraint: '传入的更新字段不能为空' (the passed update fields cannot be empty), which goes beyond the schema's sole requirement of `id`. This extra semantic guidance raises the score above the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource: '修改求职期望' (modify job expectation) and specifies the update mechanism '按求职期望id更新' (update by job expectation ID). This distinguishes it from add-job-want and other modify-* tools, meeting the criteria for a 5.

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 provides clear context: it is for updating an existing job expectation by ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the ID-based update clearly implies the prerequisite of having an existing record, and the sibling naming (add-job-want) makes the distinction evident. Thus it earns a 4.

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