bpb_edit_bags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that items are frozen and moving a bag does not drag items along – non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer from the empty schema. But it omits whether this replaces an existing edit mode, how to exit, and whether the call is idempotent, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing mode switch.

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 tight clauses: the mode and its rules first, then the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless mode-toggle with no annotations and no output schema, the entry semantics are described but the exit/transition semantics and mode interactions with the many sibling edit-mode tools are not. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently in a crowded mode-tool namespace.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so schema documentation is not a factor; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required and adds no confusing pseudo-parameters.

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 names a specific mode ('只编辑背包' / backpack-only editing) and states its defining behavior: items stay fixed while bags can be moved/rotated. It implicitly distinguishes bag editing from the item-editing siblings (bpb_edit_items, bpb_open_item_edit), but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 one concrete use case ('把背包移动到覆盖物品的位置' – move a backpack to cover items), which implies when to invoke it. However, it does not say when NOT to use it, nor does it route the agent away from related mode tools like bpb_set_edit_mode, bpb_edit_all, or bpb_open_backpack_edit.

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