UpdateResource

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. While '更新' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese ('更新数据开发文件资源信息'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 complexity of updating a resource with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and implications.

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 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., ProjectId, Id, Spec, ResourceFile). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 description '更新数据开发文件资源信息' clearly states the action ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('数据开发文件资源信息' meaning 'data development file resource information'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateNode', 'UpdateFunction', or 'UpdateTask', which also update resources in the same domain, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing resource), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'CreateResource' or 'DeleteResource'. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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