update_subscribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an update occurs and returns the updated subscription, but it omits critical details such as whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the id does not exist, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool without adequate transparency.

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 and well-structured with summary, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the key point about requiring 'id' is front-loaded.

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 updates a complex object with many fields, but the description only covers the core requirement (id) and the return value. The schema is rich but lacks descriptions for most properties, so the description leaves significant gaps. It is minimally viable but not complete for such a complex mutation tool.

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 schema has one parameter (subscribe_data) with 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the object must contain 'id' and other fields to update, conveying partial-update semantics. It does not detail the many individual fields, leaving the agent to rely on property names in the schema, which is only partially self-explanatory.

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 'Update existing subscription' (更新现有订阅), a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like add_subscribe, list_subscribes, get_subscribe, and delete_subscribe. It also emphasizes the required 'id' field, reinforcing the update intent.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing subscription and explicitly notes that 'id' must be included in the request body. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools like add_subscribe for creation.

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