updateValue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '更新值内容' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it affects other system components. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase '更新值内容', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for clarity and completeness. While efficient, it doesn't fully earn its place by providing sufficient value beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with the system (e.g., updating values in a configuration or database). The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for safe and effective use.

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% description coverage, with parameters 'name' (值名称 - value name) and 'value' (新值内容 - new value content) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 '更新值内容' (update value content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'updateValue' in Chinese. While it indicates a general update action on values, it doesn't specify what type of values are being updated (e.g., configuration values, database values) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'renameValue' or 'updateRule'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'renameValue' (which might change the name only) or 'updateRule' (which updates rules instead of values). Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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