Need to edit a lost-and-found entry? Update its details and photo, or remove the photo, with lostfound:manage permission.
更新失物。需 lostfound:manage 权限。multipart 表单，字段同登记（均可选）；另支持 removePhoto=1 移除照片（级联删除存储对象与 File 文档）。换新照片时先持久化新照片再删旧照片。 PATCH /api/projects/{id}/lostfound/{itemId} 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: the required permission scope, the multipart encoding, the cascade delete of the storage object and File document when removePhoto=1, and the ordering guarantee when swapping photos. These are meaningful behavioral details, though the return/response behavior is not described.
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?
Front-loads the core action, then adds permission, encoding, and photo-handling details in compact sentences. Slightly dense but no wasted 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 destructive PATCH with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers permission, request format, and the trickiest photo-removal/replacement behavior. The main omission is what the call returns, which is not critical given no output 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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only generically says fields mirror registration (all optional). It clarifies removePhoto semantics and that projectId is inferred from the API key, but leaves name/note/foundAt/foundLocation semantics to inference.
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 (更新失物 = update lost item) and reinforces with the PATCH route. Clear about what it does, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling anon_patch_lostfound_item_id_status tool, which also updates a lostfound item.
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?
Gives useful preconditions and usage hints: requires lostfound:manage permission, multipart form, all fields optional, and removePhoto=1 to strip the photo. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. the status PATCH or delete tool), leaving the routing decision implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.