anon_patch_materials_resource_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context: the required permission scope and that the project context is implicit. It does not disclose what is destroyed/changed, whether it is a partial merge, or reversibility.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: action, permission, then route, then the projectId caveat. Each line carries distinct information with minimal waste, though the endpoint line partly duplicates what the tool name already encodes.

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 partial-update mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers permission and routing context but not what fields are editable or what the response returns. Annotations absorb the safety half, so it is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps.

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 reported at 0% and the description explains none of the two parameters' semantics. It only clarifies an absent projectId (which is not a schema parameter), leaving the nested body fields (name, typeId, visibility, description) and path.resourceId unexplained by the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource (编辑资源 = edit resource) and pins it to the exact HTTP route PATCH /api/projects/{id}/materials/{resourceId}, which distinguishes it from the get/delete/post siblings on the same resource. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for read vs. create, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 gives a real prerequisite (materials:manage permission) and clarifies that projectId is not needed because the project is derived from the API key. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance or exclusions relative to the many other patch_* siblings.

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