update_countdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully resolves a real ambiguity created by the schema — all optional fields default to null, and the sentence clarifies that omitted fields are left untouched rather than cleared. It says nothing about permissions, failure behavior for an unknown id, or reversibility of the change.

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?

A single compact clause with the action and the field list front-loaded and the partial-update rule appended. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core update semantics but leaves out value formats for 'when' and 'color', the required id's meaning, and any notion of what the call returns. It is adequate to attempt the call but incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map the key fields: 标题→title, 到期时间→when, 颜色→color, plus the omission semantics for every optional parameter. It does not specify the expected format of 'when' (string, presumably a date) or what the integer color encodes, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb (改/modify) plus the resource (倒计时/countdown) and enumerates the mutable fields (标题/到期时间/颜色). The verb alone separates it from the sibling create/delete/list countdown tools, though none are named explicitly.

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 verb plus field list implies this is the tool for changing an existing countdown rather than creating one, and '没传的字段保持原样' signals a partial-update pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use advice, no preconditions such as the id needing to exist, and no mention of alternatives like delete_countdown plus add_countdown.

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