maimemo_advance_study

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context beyond them: the feature is in beta, availability is not guaranteed, behavior may change, and two concrete preconditions (level 10, App auto-sync). It still does not spell out the scheduling consequences of advancing words or what a failure looks like, so not a 5.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the operation name and effect, followed by prerequisites and caveats. The embedded <b> HTML tags and parenthetical '(公测)' add minor noise but nothing 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 destructive, non-idempotent beta mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers the effect, the unlock prerequisite, sync requirement, and instability warning. What remains thin is the voc_ids input and what a successful advance does to the study schedule long-term.

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 coverage is reported at 100% and 'confirm' carries its own description ('用户已明确授权本次写入。须为 true。'). The description adds nothing about voc_ids (max 1000, empty sub-description) or the confirm gate, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters applies.

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: moving words forward for immediate review ('将单词提前到当下马上复习'), which is clearly actionable and distinct from bulk-import siblings like maimemo_add_words or read-only ones like maimemo_get_today_items. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real prerequisites (must be level 10 to unlock, auto-sync must be enabled in the App), which is meaningful when-to-use context. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as maimemo_get_today_items or maimemo_add_words, and no exclusions are given, so guidance is only partial.

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