批量修改子账号

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description accurately identifies what gets modified, but it does not disclose side effects such as the two-step confirm_token flow; that detail appears only in the parameter schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies the key format requirement for ids. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 that the schema thoroughly explains all five parameters, including the two-step confirm_token behavioraine, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the absence of an output-schema note, but the operation itself is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with per-parameter descriptions, an enum expansion for product, and a range for changeInterval. The description only restates that ids are comma-separated and that remark/changeInterval are editable; it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the action ('批量修改' = batch modify), the resource ('多个动态住宅子账号' = multiple dynamic residential sub-accounts), and the exact fields affected ('备注或 IP 切换间隔'). It is clearly distinct from sub_account_update in its batch nature, though it does not explicitly name the singular sibling alternative.

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 word '批量' and the comma-separated ids parameter imply this is for updating multiple sub-accounts at once, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not reference alternatives such as sub_account_update for single updates. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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