Da Update Features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only vague context ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities') and does not explain update semantics, permissions, or what happens to unmatched rows.

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 short and front-loads the operation, but the second sentence is vague boilerplate that does not earn its place for a complex mutation tool. It is concise without being sufficiently informative.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety hints, the description leaves critical context missing: parameter meaning, update format, filtering behavior, row limits, and service capability constraints. For a write tool with nested parameters and 0% schema descriptions, this is incomplete.

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 schema has four parameters with 0% description coverage, including the required 'updates' object and optional 'where_clause' and 'max_rows_updated'. The description mentions none of them, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('更新要素' / update features), but it adds no scope, format, or DA-specific detail beyond the tool name. With dozens of update/insert/edit sibling tools, it does not help distinguish this tool from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as da_update_field_constant, edit_apply, gp_calculate_field, or da_insert_features. The note that write and path restrictions depend on service capabilities is a caveat, not usage guidance or exclusion criteria.

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