yapi_update_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail that only provided fields are updated and others remain unchanged, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and the key usage rule. No filler, appropriately concise.

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 tool with 21 parameters and complex nested schema, the description is minimal. It relies on the comprehensive schema for parameter details. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing the existing interface state, but the required id and the general update guidance are adequate for basic use. However, it could offer more guidance on handling groups of related parameters (e.g., requestBody vs requestForm).

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 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds a general principle for using parameters (only pass fields to modify) but does not add per-parameter specifics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 '按接口 ID 更新 YApi 接口' (update YApi interface by interface ID), a clear verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create, get, list, and search, so an agent can distinguish it.

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?

Gives the guideline '只传需要修改的字段' (only pass fields to modify), which clarifies partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as creating a new interface or fetching one, leaving some inference to the agent.

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