zentao_update_program

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'modify', implying a non-destructive update, but lacks details on authorization needs, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 11 parameters, more context about behavior beyond the schema is needed.

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 very brief (5 Chinese characters), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or include any sentences that earn their place beyond stating the obvious. While not verbose, it could be more informative within a similar length.

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 complexity of 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, any constraints on parameter combinations, or provide examples. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the tool as a whole lacks contextual guidance for the agent.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters. According to the rules, with high coverage, baseline is 3, and there is no extra value provided here.

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 states '修改禅道项目集' which translates to 'Modify ZenTao program'. It uses a specific verb (modify) and resource (program) that clearly indicates the action and target. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create and delete, as the name itself conveys the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_program or delete_program). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the program needing to exist, or conditions under which update is appropriate. The description offers no contextual hints for the agent to decide when this tool is preferred.

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