briefing_stock_alert_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, but it only states what fields can be modified and gives trigger phrases. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, any side effects, or return behavior. This is a mutation tool, so the lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing trigger examples. Every sentence is purposeful, with no redundant or filler content. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the essential selection criteria and user intents. It does not mention edge cases, error handling, or the effect of leaving fields unspecified, but for an update tool, the primary context (modifying an existing alert) is clear from the description and the parameter schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping natural-language examples to parameters: 'strict' maps to sensitivity, '延长 3 个月' maps to extend_months, and '加个关键词' maps to add_keywords. This helps the agent translate user intent into parameter values beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 the tool modifies an alert's tightness, time window, description, and keywords, clearly identifying the action and resource. The examples ('改成 strict', '延长 3 个月', '加个关键词') make the scope concrete and distinguish it from sibling tools like set (create) and dismiss.

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 explicitly lists user phrasings that should trigger this tool, e.g., '那条预警改成 strict', '延长 3 个月', '加个关键词', which serves as clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples effectively convey the update context versus create/dismiss siblings.

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