maimemo_update_interpretation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the name — it does not mention that this is a destructive write requiring authorization, what gets overwritten, or the mandatory confirm flag.

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?

It is technically brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise — a bare restatement of the tool's action with no front-loaded context or structure. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficiency.

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 write tool with a nested body object and a mandatory confirm=true authorization parameter, the description is wholly inadequate. Nothing about the write semantics, the confirmation requirement, or the nested update payload is conveyed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, the nested body.interpretation fields, and the confirm authorization flag. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 phrase '更新释义' names a specific verb (更新/update) and resource (释义/interpretation), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like maimemo_create_interpretation or maimemo_delete_interpretation beyond the verb, and adds no scope or field detail.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the create/delete/list interpretation siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are stated.

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