lpb_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, implying a guarded action. It does not mention idempotency or response behavior, but the dry-run/execute distinction is partially implied by '需 confirm' and fully specified in the schema's confirm parameter description.

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 short sentences—with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and the key constraint (confirm requirement) efficiently.

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 simple update operation and the comprehensive schema, the description provides adequate context. It lacks explicit mention of output or error cases, but that is acceptable for a write tool and the schema covers the request structure thoroughly.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The main description adds only '按 id 更新字段' which reiterates the id role without providing additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool updates a landing page by id, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get. The verb '更新' (update) and resource '落地页' (landing page) are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use create for new pages, delete for removal'), so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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