update_hda

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it flags the operation as MUTATING, discloses that it does NOT call `definition.save()`, lists validation prerequisites (node exists, has definition, instance type matches), and mentions the response passes through `apply_response_cap`. This gives an agent insight into side effects and safety.

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 compact: a first sentence states the purpose and mutating nature, followed by a short paragraph with implementation details. No fluff, and code identifiers are clearly marked.

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 one-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, validation steps, and a key non-behavior (no save). It does not explain what 'apply_response_cap' does or what the return value signifies, which would help an agent anticipate the response. Overall, it's above average but has minor gaps.

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 schema only defines `node_path` with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description indirectly clarifies that `node_path` refers to the instance node via references to '节点' and the validation logic. However, it does not explicitly define the path format or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the primary action in the first line: '从实例更新定义' (update definition from instance), with a specific verb and resource. It also names the underlying API method (`definition.updateFromNode(node)`), which disambiguates from generic HDA tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `hda_create` or `reload_hda`, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions verification steps and implementation details, but no use-case context or exclusion criteria. It does not say 'use this when...' or point to a sibling for different scenarios.

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