override_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it writes to 'item.override_json', preserves the question_id trace ('血缘不断'), and notes that mathematical symbols like '<>' are not stripped by XSS. It also specifies the return format as '{ok}', giving full transparency for a safe mutation operation.

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, consisting of four short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique value, covering scope, behavior, revert mechanism, and safety features, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two parameters, nested objects, and an output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. It explains the effect, reversion, and safety, but could be enhanced by mentioning error cases or required permissions. Still, it is adequate 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?

The schema has 50% coverage (only 'override' has a description). The tool description adds value by explaining the effect of 'stem' and 'options' being written to 'override_json' and clarifies that passing an empty override ('{}') resets to original. However, 'item_id' remains undocumented, though its purpose is inferable from context.

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 modifies a question's stem/options within a book without affecting the original item in the question bank ('只影响本书，题库原子题**不动**'). The verb ('改') and resource ('一道题的题面') are specific, and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from global edits.

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 (for per-book overrides) and how to revert ('还原原题 = 传空 override（{}）即清'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context implies differentiation from sibling tools like 'edit_variant'.

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