wps_word_update_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates fields (TOC and PAGE), implying a write operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., saving, undo ability, performance impact) or whether the operation is reversible. The description is adequate but lacks additional behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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: two sentences in Chinese. The first sentence states the action and its effect, the second provides usage timing. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does (updates all fields) and when to use it. It does not explicitly mention handling of other field types beyond TOC and PAGE, but '全文所有域' implies all fields, and the examples are sufficient. A minor gap is lack of mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must have a TOC), but this is minor.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the scoring guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the effect on TOC and page numbers, which is necessary since there are no parameters to convey this information.

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 uses a specific verb ('更新' - update) and resource ('全文所有域' - all fields in the entire document). It clearly identifies the tool's function as regenerating TOC and refreshing page numbers, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_text, replace, etc.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: '写完全文后调用它' (call it after finishing writing the document). This gives clear context for the tool's intended use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's specialized nature, such exclusions are not necessary.

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