update_meet_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '更新' (update), implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 phrase ('更新预约窗口'), which is highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., meet_id as database ID, status with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 '更新预约窗口' clearly states the verb ('更新' meaning update) and resource ('预约窗口' meaning appointment window), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_reservation_status' or 'update_reservation_time_by_mobile', which also perform updates but on different resources.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing meet_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_meet_window' or 'delete_meet_window', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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