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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral constraint: '传入的更新字段不能为空' (passed update fields cannot be empty), which informs the caller that at least one field besides workId must be provided. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like partial update semantics, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps typical of mutation tools.

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 brief sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the critical usage constraint. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 19 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or whether the update is partial or full. The constraint about non-empty fields is useful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity, especially without annotations.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 19 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general 'non-empty' constraint, which is already implied by the schema's optional fields but not explicitly stated. Thus the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.

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 '修改工作经验' (modify work experience) and specifies '按工作经验id更新' (update by work experience ID). This distinguishes it from add-work-exp and other modification tools, making the action and target resource 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?

The description implies usage for updating an existing work experience but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct comparison to add-work-exp or other modify tools, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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