update_bug

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a write (update) and mentions protection mechanisms (whitelist, rate limiting). However, it does not disclose what happens if the bug does not exist, whether partial updates are allowed, what the response contains, or any side effects like notifications. The behavioral disclosure is incomplete 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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads essential information: the action, the object, and security constraints. It earns its place. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about parameter usage or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what happens on success), how to handle errors, or whether all fields are updated simultaneously. The description covers only the high-level purpose and protection, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter constraints or expected behavior after invocation.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. However, the tool description itself does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it simply repeats '更新缺陷欄位' (update bug fields). It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., whether fields are optional or applied atomically) or provide usage context like formatting expectations for 'priority' beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the lack of added value and the omission of any help for the 5 optional parameters that might be confusing (e.g., 'describe' is ambiguous between description and a verb) justifies a lower score.

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 action (update bug fields), the object (bug), and classifies it as a write operation. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_requirement' or 'create_bug', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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 mentions it is protected by a whitelist and frequency limit, implying constraints on when it can be used, but it does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., create_bug for new bugs, or list_bugs to find the bug first). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is given.

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