更新画像核心字段

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: only explicitly passed fields are modified, and aliases are incrementally merged without deleting existing ones. This partial-update and merge semantics is critical behavioral context that annotations don't cover. Could potentially note auth requirements but the core semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. Every sentence adds distinct value: what fields, the partial-update behavior, the merge behavior, and the sibling tool diversion. Well front-loaded with purpose then semantics.

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?

The tool is a partial-update mutation with 5 params, an output schema exists, and annotations provide idempotency. The description covers the essential semantics (partial update, merge behavior, sibling routing) well. Could add a note about return values, but the output schema covers that responsibility. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 20%, so the description bears responsibility for clarifying params. It clarifies aliases semantics (incremental merge, not delete) and states which fields are modified (name, relationship, summary, aliases), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, coverage is low and the description doesn't detail relationship or summary constraints beyond the schema's basic types.

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 clearly states the verb (修改/update) and specific fields (姓名/name, 关系/relationship, 摘要/summary, 别名/aliases). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming add_facts / update_fact / delete_fact for fact operations. Could be slightly stronger in naming the tool's distinct role vs create_profile, but the field-level scope is clear.

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 explicitly states the incremental merge behavior ('只有显式传入的字段会被修改') and explicitly directs users to use add_facts / update_fact / delete_fact for fact operations, providing clear exclusions and alternatives. This is strong when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance.

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