yapi_update_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an interface, without revealing whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens if the interface does not exist, whether all required fields must be present, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward update operation. However, given the tool's complexity (12 params), one might expect a bit more context, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description that does not explain return values, error behavior, or preconditions. The complexity of the tool (12 parameters, 6 required) means the description should offer more context about what the update does, what it returns, and any caveats, making this inadequate for a complete tool understanding.

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 covers 100% of the 12 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is complete, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't enrich the meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing API interface.' It distinguishes from the create/delete/get siblings through the explicit 'update' action and 'existing' qualifier. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't mention which fields or aspects can be updated, though the schema complements this.

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. It doesn't mention that creating new interfaces should use yapi_create_interface, deleting should use yapi_delete_interface, or any prerequisites or context for updating. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are given.

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