record_party

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 explaining behavior. '登记' signals a write operation, and the field list names what data is captured, but the description does not disclose whether this creates or updates a party record, what validation happens, whether duplicates are rejected, or what side effects occur. This is under-disclosed for a mutation 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the long parameter block earns its place because the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The inline brace-list is slightly dense and repeats 必填 many times, but there is no fluff or irrelevant content.

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?

The description gives the data shape and one key business rule, and an output schema reportedly exists, so return-value details are not required here. But it leaves gaps: what '第一部分' means, whether all fields are truly required for non-duty-crime cases, and how this tool fits into the larger workflow with so many sibling record_* tools.

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 formal input schema leaves 'args' as an untyped object with additionalProperties allowed and zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating all 14 expected fields with Chinese labels, marking each as 必填, and adding the duty-crime special requirement. This is exactly the parameter guidance the agent needs.

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 opening phrase '登记当事人基本情况' names a concrete action (登记/record) and a concrete resource (当事人基本情况/party basic information). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_indictment, record_statement, or set_case_basic.

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 a conditional usage rule for duty-crime cases ('职务犯罪须填 position 与 appointment_history'), which helps the agent know when those extra fields are needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the many sibling record_* tools, leaving tool-selection guidance mostly implicit.

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