save_study_record

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

Far beyond the annotations (which only say non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that missing optional fields revert to defaults, that every save returns to 待复核, and precisely which field edits (stem/answer/main evidence/annotations/paper grading/agent verdict) wipe analysis and exercises. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false given the described clearing of derived data, but the reset is intentional and regenerable rather than destructive loss.

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 most important constraint ('完整保存...不是局部patch') is front-loaded, and each clause carries distinct information (workflow, defaults, reset, clearing rules). It is dense and somewhat run-on with several clauses packed into long sentences, but there is no filler.

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 complex full-record mutation with a rich output schema (so return values needn't be spelled out, though it mentions them anyway), the description covers workflow, default handling, review-state transitions, and destructive side effects. Only the semantics of individual nested record fields are left to the schema.

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 on 3 params and a large nested StudyRecord, the description carries the load: it explains the record_id/expected_revision mapping to the outer id/revision and clarifies clean_evidence_ids semantics ('按题面顺序选取本题主证据已生成的净题图，不自动确认'). It does not explain the many inner record fields individually, so it compensates well but not completely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (完整保存题目草稿) and immediately distinguishes the operation from its sibling: '不是局部patch' and the contrast with read_study_record. An agent can tell this is a full-record upsert, not a partial write, without opening the schema.

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?

It prescribes the exact workflow and conditions: read_study_record first, modify the returned record, pass it back whole, and map the outer id/revision to record_id/expected_revision. It also states the ordering constraint for corrections (save the basis first, then regenerate) and the reset-to-pending behavior after each save.

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