Update IM configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add detail beyond that. It does: each field fans out to a separate backend write call and results come back per field, which signals possible partial application. It does not state whether a partial failure is rolled back or which fields are irreversible, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the partial-update contract, followed by the fan-out behavior and then the confirm requirement. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

Covers the essentials an agent needs to avoid a bad call (partial update + confirm), but with a destructive 18-parameter write and no output schema, the definition should say more about what the per-field result looks like when something fails and what the many undocumented fields do. Adequate but with clear 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?

With 18 parameters and only 39% schema coverage, the description should compensate but mostly doesn't. It does add real meaning for confirm (must be true for service-level switches) and flags imMainSwitch/callbackUrl as the dangerous ones; the other cryptic fields (callbackResult, checkAppBundle, publishoffline, customKickPolicy) stay undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('按字段更新 IM 配置') and clarifies the partial-update semantics ('only pass fields to modify'). It never distinguishes itself from the sibling read tool yunxin_im_config_get, so the agent must infer the pair from names alone.

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?

Gives an actionable rule: send only the fields you want changed and pass confirm: true for service-level switches such as imMainSwitch and callbackUrl. It does not say when to prefer yunxin_im_config_get or what to do if a per-field write fails, so exclusions/alternatives are missing.

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