alias_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '原子切换别名' (atomic alias switching) in the example, which hints at transactional behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether operations are atomic, what happens on partial failures, or what permissions are required. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with a title line, parameter listing, and helpful example. The structure is clear with separate sections, though the example could be better integrated. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more polished in presentation.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, atomicity guarantees, or how it differs from individual alias operations. The example helps but doesn't provide complete context for safe and effective use.

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. It only states 'actions: 操作列表' (actions: operation list) and provides an example showing add/remove operations. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's array type, leaving the full structure and available operation types undocumented. The example helps but doesn't provide comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 states the tool performs '批量操作别名' (batch operations on aliases), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like alias_create, alias_delete, or alias_get, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 the other alias-related tools (alias_create, alias_delete, alias_get). The example shows atomic switching of aliases, but there's no explicit statement about when this batch approach is preferred over individual operations or what specific use cases it addresses.

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