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

Annotations already declare this a mutating, open-world, idempotent write, so the description adds beyond them: login requirement, policy timing (先过后审：立即生效), immutability of slug/type, and the critical conditional side effect that moving registrationDeadline earlier blocks in-progress submitters and voids their drafts. Disclosing a destructive parameter-side-effect inside a tool annotated destructiveHint=false is exactly the kind of contextual value that earns credit, not a contradiction.

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?

Three labeled sections (需要登录 / 分工 / 红线) front-load prerequisites, position the sibling-routing warning immediately after the core function, and isolate the danger warning last. Every sentence carries operational weight and the bold markers make boundaries scannable.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials: auth, how to obtain activityId, what is and is not editable, which sibling owns the other field family, and the one parameter with harmful side effects. Minor gaps: return/error behavior is unstated, and the organizer-ownership precondition is implied by '我办的活动的' rather than stated.

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 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping field families (标题/介绍/时间/地点/长图/封面) to the tool's 本体信息 scope — telling the agent which parameters belong here vs. the sibling — and by expanding registrationDeadline's meaning beyond the schema's one-liner with concrete consequences (blocks people, voids drafts). Gaps remain: meetUrl, capacity, and productId have no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, and startAt/endAt only receive a '时间' family grouping.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource: '改我办的活动的本体信息' (edit the core info of my organized activities), then enumerates the covered fields (标题/介绍/时间/地点/长图/封面) and the exclusions (slug/type 不可改). This sharply scopes the generic title and distinguishes the tool from the closest sibling without opening either 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?

Explicit when/when-not routing: '活动本体…走这里；报名表单与报名方式走 update_organizer_signup_config' names the alternative and the condition selecting it, under the header 【分工——别调错】. It also states the prerequisite workflow '先用 list_my_activities 拿 activityId'. Nothing is left to inference.

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