更新分类

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

With no annotations provided, the description usefully discloses that data causes a full replacement (a destructive behavior) and that patch performs a shallow merge, including a concrete {list: [...]} example. It omits permissions, error behavior, return format, and whether the operation creates a missing category, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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 two compact clauses with zero filler, front-loading the action and then immediately contrasting the two parameter behaviors. The example is short and earns its place by clarifying shallow merge.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undescribed input schema, the description provides the crucial replace-vs-merge semantics but not enough to know what fields a category document accepts. It is adequate for choosing between data and patch, but incomplete for safely constructing a full update payload.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: data is described as whole-document replacement and patch as shallow merge with an example of array replacement. It still does not describe the expected fields inside data or the types, leaving some ambiguity for constructing valid input.

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 opens with "保存分类" (save category), a clear verb and resource that an agent can match to the cats.update tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cats.list, but the action is distinct enough for selection.

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?

It explains the two operational modes: data replaces the entire document, while patch shallow-merges with the existing one. However, it does not say when to use update versus other category tools or mention prerequisites such as whether the category must already exist.

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