update_section_bias

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, particularly the side_i explanation that 'for tapered sections True means I-end, False means J-end' and the center_type choices. However, it does not disclose how bias_type and bias_point interact when both are provided, nor how updates affect existing section bias settings, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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?

The docstring is structured with a one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block. Each parameter line is short and informative, with Chinese translations adding context without bloat. No sentence is wasted.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and uninformative annotations, the description covers nearly all invocation-relevant information: parameter meanings, defaults, enum-like values, and domain-specific side_i behavior. The main gap is the unstated relationship between bias_type and bias_point and error behavior for invalid section IDs, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 full burden for parameter meaning, and it succeeds. Every parameter gets semantic explanation: index is the section ID, bias_type has concrete example values, center_type names valid options, bias_point is a custom [y, z] offset, and side_i is clearly explained for tapered sections.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Update section bias/eccentricity (更新截面偏心/对齐方式).' This clearly identifies the operation and resource, and 'section bias' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_section_property and update_element_section.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool—whenever section bias/eccentricity needs updating—but it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives such as update_section_property or update_element_section. There is clear context but no exclusionary guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource name.

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