修改子账号备注

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as the two-step confirm_token flow or effect scope, but the basic safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 tool has a conditional confirm_token two-step behavior and no output schema, yet the description is very thin and relies on the schema to convey that nuance. It also does not mention when to prefer the batch sibling, though the rich schema and annotations cover most operational details.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not above baseline.

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 a specific action (修改备注) and resource (动态住宅的某个子账号), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from add/delete/credentials siblings by being singular, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sub_account_update_batch.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sub_account_update_batch or sub_account_set_credentials. The only hint is the singular '某个子账号', which is implicit rather than explicit.

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