update_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the scoring rules for different question types, the persistence via /update, and the return format including error handling. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects beyond updating the paper.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: first explaining the core action, then scoring rules, then parameter list with defaults, and finally return format. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input parameters (with defaults), behavior (scoring rules and persistence), and output format. Since an output schema exists, the description's inclusion of return details is helpful but not required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: paper_id identifies the paper, total_score is total score (default 120), suggest_time is suggested minutes (default 120). It also clarifies default values and the role of parameters.

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's purpose: to calculate per-question scores based on grade-standard scores and set suggested time, then persist via /update. It specifies the verb '给试卷按年级标准分(通值)算每题分值 + 设建议时长' and distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_paper or create_paper by focusing on updating an existing paper's scoring and time.

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 when to use this tool: after a paper is created, to set scoring and suggested time. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling names (e.g., create_paper) makes it clear this is an update operation.

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