update_requirement

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation (寫入操作) and warns about whitelist and frequency restrictions, which are helpful behavioral traits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it provides adequate but not rich details—e.g., no mention of side effects, error conditions, or whether updates are atomic.

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 conveys the essential information without waste. It could be slightly more structured by front-loading the key verb, but it is efficient and to the point.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context (write operation with restrictions) but lacks critical details such as return behavior, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. It is minimally adequate for an agent but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide (e.g., it doesn't explain how fields interact or which are required for an update). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is to update requirement fields, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_requirement (creation) and get_requirement_detail (read-only). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_bug, which is a similar mutation 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 includes a vague note about protection (whitelist and frequency limits) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_requirement for creating records or get_requirement_detail for reading. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites or conditions for calling this tool.

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