anon_patch_dashboard_preferences

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

The description asserts '幂等 upsert' (idempotent upsert) while the annotations declare idempotentHint: false, a direct contradiction of the structured safety metadata. It also frames the operation as a benign preference upsert without acknowledging destructiveHint: true, which the agent needs to treat the write as overwriting. This is an Annotation Contradiction.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, permission requirement, field semantics, and endpoint follow in order with little waste. The embedded URL line is slightly redundant with the tool name but earns its place by pinning the resource path.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a 0%-coverage parameter schema, it does cover identity requirements, truncation limits, and auto-scoped projectId. However, it omits whether unlisted preferences are preserved on a partial PATCH and contradicts the idempotency/destructiveness metadata, leaving real gaps for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially compensates: it discloses that all fields are optional, that card arrays are each truncated to 20 entries, and that projectId is derived from the API key. The five nested body fields (cardOrder, defaultView, hiddenCards, scheduleRange, collapsedCards) are never explained, so half the semantics still come from the bare schema.

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, '更新工作台偏好' (update dashboard preferences), and pairs it with the exact HTTP endpoint, so it is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_dashboard_preferences. It stops short of naming alternatives or contrasting scope explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'需项目成员身份' gives a concrete precondition for invocation, and '字段均可选' tells the agent the call can be partial. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. vs get_dashboard_preferences), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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