nacos_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral meaning for two fields (weight must stay in 0.0~1.0; enabled=false means the instance is isolated and taken offline), which is genuinely useful. But it omits permissions/auth requirements, what happens to the instance if the update fails, the effect on ephemeral nodes, and whether unspecified fields are left untouched.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly dense but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It identifies the update target and the three most consequential fields, but leaves the agent without guidance on preconditions, failure behavior, or the ephemeral/metadata interaction.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the weight range and the enabled boolean semantics but adds no syntax, defaults, or formats beyond what structured data supplies. Baseline 3 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 and resource ('动态更新微服务实例状态') and enumerates the mutable facets (weight, enabled switch, metadata), which clearly separates it from nacos_register_instance / nacos_deregister_instance. It stops short of naming siblings or explicitly contrasting with registration/deregistration.

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?

Usage is implied: this mutates an already-registered instance rather than adding/removing one. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites (the instance must exist), and no alternative routing such as deregister+register for ephemeral changes.

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