更新重复项

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive trait: data replaces the whole document, while patch performs a shallow merge. That is genuinely valuable behavioral information. However, it omits whether saving an unknown item creates it, what happens to nested objects on shallow merge, auth requirements, and what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the data/patch distinction with a concrete patch example. No filler; the only omission is that it is arguably too terse for an untyped mutation tool.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and untyped parameters, the description supplies the crucial merge-vs-replace rule but leaves the agent guessing about create-on-missing behavior, parameter combination rules, and return values.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are untyped empty objects, so the description must compensate; it does explain data's replacement semantics and patch's shallow-merge semantics with an example. It still does not specify expected structure for data, whether both may be supplied together, or which takes precedence.

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 resource (重复项) and verb (保存), and distinguishes two update modes (data full replacement vs patch shallow merge). It does not clarify whether this upserts/creates when the item doesn't exist, which matters given the name is 'update' and no create sibling for recurring exists.

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 contrast between data and patch implicitly tells the agent which parameter to choose for full replace vs partial edit, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like recurring.list or other *.update tools, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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