yapi-update-interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '修改' (modify) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response format. For a complex update tool with 15 parameters, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 description is extremely concise with just three Chinese characters. While this represents severe under-specification for such a complex tool, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every character earns its place by conveying the core action, though it fails to provide necessary additional context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, how partial updates work, or how it differs from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in practice.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 15 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 '修改 YAPI 接口' (Modify YAPI interface) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'yapi-update-interface' in Chinese. It provides the verb 'modify' and resource 'YAPI interface', but doesn't specify what aspects can be modified or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'yapi-create-interface'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for YAPI interfaces (create, get, update), but the description doesn't indicate this is for updating existing interfaces versus creating new ones, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an interface ID. It offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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