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

Annotations already state non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds the durable behavioral fact that 'claiming/completing doesn't change need status' and maps 403/409 to no-retry, which goes beyond structured fields. It doesn't detail which fields are writable or payload semantics, keeping it at 4.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load login requirement, scope, error codes, and then the combo chain. Zero filler and all high-value operational facts are first.

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 5-field patch tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers auth, scope, failure handling, status side-effect, and chain. It lacks field-level update guidance and return confirmation, but is otherwise complete enough for safe invocation.

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 40%, and the type enum plus needId source (`list_my_needs`) are documented in-schema. The description only names the needId source; it doesn't explain title/detail/images/edit semantics, leaving the coverage gap partly unfilled. Baseline for this coverage is moderate.

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 "确认后patch本人OPEN需求" states a specific verb (patch/update) and resource (my OWN need, and only while OPEN), and differentiates scope ('本人', 'OPEN') from sibling `update_organization` or generic `create_need`. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the scope conditions are clear.

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?

It gives explicit error-state routing (403 non-owner / 409 already closed don't retry) and an explicit combo chain: list_my_needs → confirm → update_need → get_need, so the agent knows exactly what to call before and after and when to stop.

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