anon_patch_announcements_announcement_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the required permission (announcement:manage) and the important side effect that passing null for expiresAt clears the expiration time, which is exactly the kind of mutation detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two compact sentences plus the endpoint line, with the key facts (permission, optionality, null-clearing) front-loaded. The PATCH path restates information already implied by the tool name, but the surrounding note about automatic project resolution earns its place.

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 7-field optional-body mutation with no output schema and no annotation-level permission info, the description covers the highest-risk details: auth requirement, partial-update semantics, null-clearing behavior, and implicit project scoping. Missing per-field guidance is largely self-evident from the schema's enums and names.

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 effectively 0% for the body's seven fields (only the nested visibility object carries its own schema description). The description partially compensates by explaining that all fields are optional and that expiresAt accepts null to clear, and by explaining why projectId is absent (derived from the API key), but it leaves type, isPinned, and requireConfirmation undocumented.

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+resource ('更新公告' / update announcement) and pins it to the PATCH endpoint for a single announcement id, so it is unmistakably distinct from post_announcements, delete_announcements, and get_announcements. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the partial-update framing makes its scope clear 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?

Adds real context: it requires the announcement:manage permission and notes that all body fields are optional, implying a partial update. However, it never states when to choose this over post_announcements (create) or delete_announcements (remove), leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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