update_report_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: the operation is a full replacement of the outline, and it can optionally set the report into a generation-ready state. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing report content or state when confirm is set.

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, tightly written sentence that leads with the core action ('全量替换报告大纲') and follows with the optional state confirmation. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main action and the confirm behavior, and the input schema together with the output schema provide structural detail. Still, there is no guidance on when this tool should be selected over create_report_plan, and the role of `topic` remains unexplained. For a destructive replace operation, this is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 must compensate for missing parameter docs. It does clarify that `sections` represent the full replacement outline and that `confirm` relates to making the outline generation-ready. However, the optional `topic` parameter is not mentioned at all, and `report_id` is only inferable from the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb ('全量替换' = fully replace) and a specific resource ('报告大纲' = report outline), and it adds a distinct state-transition behavior ('可将其确认为可生成状态'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_report, create_report_plan, and generate_report.

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 create_report_plan or generate_report. There is no mention that the report must already have an outline, no mention of prerequisites, and no excluded cases. Usage context is only implied by the word 'replace'.

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