share_update_material

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety burden is partly carried. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a scoped partial update that leaves unspecified fields untouched, it only applies to the caller's own uploads, and it requires confirm=true before executing. It still doesn't say what happens on confirm=false (dry run vs error) or how failures behave.

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?

Two compact clauses plus a short execution note, with no redundancy. The mutable-field list comes first and the confirm requirement last, so the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 destructive partial-update tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential facts: scope, editable fields, preservation of unspecified fields, and the confirm gate. It omits edge behavior such as ownership violations or confirm=false semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps name, description, material_type_id, points and anonymous to concrete editable fields, and repeats the confirm gate. material_id is undocumented in the description but the schema describes it as a positive integer ID, so no important parameter is left obscure.

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 (修改/modify) and resource (自己上传的资料, i.e. materials the caller uploaded) and enumerates the editable fields (name, description, type, price, anonymous status). This is much clearer than siblings like share_upload_material or share_delete_material, but it never names or routes to those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ownership constraint ('自己上传资料') and the confirm gate imply when the tool applies, and '未指定字段保持原值' tells the agent partial updates are allowed. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., delete_material for removal, upload_material for creation) and no when-not guidance.

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