User Mod

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only tags itself as a write operation. It omits whether the target user must exist, whether renaming breaks sessions/shares, and that groups behaves as a full overwrite (that detail exists only in the schema, not the description).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the write-operation qualifier is placed up front. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it wastes no words.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, a one-line description is not sufficient even though an output schema covers return values. It should disclose overwrite behavior, existence/permission prerequisites, and how it differs from the sibling user-management 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters individually documented (including the '覆盖' overwrite semantics for groups), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (修改/modify) and resource (NAS 用户信息), so the agent knows this mutates an existing user rather than creating or deleting one. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as user_add, user_del, user_set_admin, or user_unfreeze, nor does it hint that renaming/password changes are in scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. the target user must exist), and no routing to alternatives like user_set_admin for privilege changes or user_del for removal. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name.

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