update_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update field values' without mentioning idempotency, partial updates, error handling, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool to guide safe and correct invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence that is efficiently front-loaded. However, it is too minimal and could benefit from additional structured details like bullet points or examples without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical context such as return value format, error cases, or handling of partial updates. The absence of annotations further increases the need for richer description, which is not provided.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema itself already clarifies the meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage but does not go further to explain constraints like the 'data' object structure.

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 '更新' (update) and the resource '指定记录字段值' (specified record field values), effectively conveying the tool's primary action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like batch_update_records or update_record_relations, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 alternatives such as batch_update_records or delete_record. It lacks context about prerequisites, edges cases, or suggestions for typical use cases, forcing the agent to rely on the name and schema alone.

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