子账号带宽升级

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutating) and readOnlyHint=false, so the description appropriately adds billing details ('will deduct from account balance') and the prerequisite about expired sub-accounts. It also mentions the confirm_token flow in the schema, which is covered there. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the billing impact and renewal precondition.

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 concise, front-loaded with the most critical fact (billing), and every sentence adds value. It covers billing, the action, how to find options, and a precondition in just three sentences without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description is quite complete: it covers billing, the upgrade action, package lookup, and a precondition. The only minor omission is explicit information about the return value or preview behavior, but that is partially covered by the confirm_token schema description. Overall, sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning (product enum, sub_accounts list, bandwidth_num, confirm_token). The description adds minimal extra meaning for bandwidth_num (must be greater than current bandwidth) and mentions the confirm_token process, but most parameter details are in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: upgrading the bandwidth of static residential sub-accounts to a specified value, with explicit mention of billing from account balance. It distinguishes itself from siblings like order_renew and bandwidth_package_list by focusing on the upgrade action and referencing the package list for options.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to upgrade bandwidth, and mentions using bandwidth_package_list to check available packages and prices. It also notes a precondition (must renew expired sub-accounts first), but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for other actions like renewal, which is covered by order_renew.

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