Qingflow Canonical Records Mutate

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

Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication, authorization, or side effects beyond confirming it is a write entry.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical details, making it minimally acceptable but not well-structured for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema not detailed in the description), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain how to construct the action object or use fields and answers, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (plan_id and action object) or their semantics. The complex nested structures in the schema are left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to rely solely on raw JSON.

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 clearly states it is a 'canonical write entry for create/update operations', specifying the verb (write) and resource (records). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like qf.query.record or qf_field_resolve, which are read-oriented.

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 implies usage for create/update operations but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not exclude read operations or other mutations like delete, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from the sibling list.

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