anon_patch_work_modules_mid

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing exactly what gets destroyed: startAt/endAt are rebuilt as a pair so submitting one value clears the other, and replacing assigneeIds retains confirmation records for kept members while clearing removed ones. This is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail an agent needs before a destructive patch.

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 verb+resource, then permission, then the tricky field semantics, then the endpoint and auth note. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the endpoint/auth lines could be slightly tighter.

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 single-item mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the permission requirement, the auto-determined project, and the subtle field-rebuild rules. It is nearly complete, missing only return/response expectations, which an output schema would normally cover.

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 must compensate. It does explain the two non-obvious parameters (the startAt/endAt pairing rule and assigneeIds replacement semantics), but name, location, description, requiredCount, and mid are left undocumented, so it only partially closes the coverage gap.

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 ('更新任务模块' / update task module) and includes the PATCH endpoint, which pins down the operation precisely. It is distinguishable from the create (post_work_modules) and delete siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 states the precondition ('需 work:manage 权限') and clarifies that projectId need not be passed because the API key determines it. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or how partial updates interact with other work-module endpoints, leaving usage largely implied.

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