Update your own course review, preserving omitted fields and clearing the score with an empty string; set confirm=true to authorize the write.
修改我的一条评价；未提供字段保持原值，score 传空字符串可清除。需 confirm=true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | No | 成绩，最多 10 字符 | |
| rating | No | ||
| confirm | No | 仅在用户已明确授权此次远端写入后设为 true | |
| content | No | ||
| semester | No | ||
| review_id | Yes | 平台对象 ID，正整数 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: partial-update semantics, score clearing via empty string, and the confirm=true gate. It does not detail return behavior or auth beyond confirm, but that is largely covered by annotations and output schema.
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 a single compact statement, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two critical behavioral caveats. Every clause carries useful information.
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 that annotations cover safety and side effects and an output schema exists, the description supplies the essential update semantics and confirm requirement. It is still thin on when to use this versus sibling tools and on some optional field meanings, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.
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 50%, with rating, content, and semester lacking descriptions. The description adds real semantics for score clearing, confirm=true, and omitted-field retention, but it leaves the meaning of rating, content, and semester largely to the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 修改 (modify) '我的一条评价' (one of my reviews). This distinguishes it from create_review, delete_review, and vote_review in practice, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
It implies use for editing an existing review and gives field-level guidance: omitted fields keep original values, an empty string clears score, and confirm=true is required. It never states when to choose this over create_review, delete_review, or other alternatives, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.