update_reservation_time_by_mobile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '更改' implies a mutation/write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether the change is reversible, what happens if the mobile number doesn't exist, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient Chinese sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool executes successfully or fails, what validation occurs beyond schema patterns, or how this interacts with the reservation system. The agent would need to guess about behavioral aspects.

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%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (which specify formats like '11-digit mobile number', 'YYYY-MM-DD date', etc.). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('更改' meaning 'change') and resource ('预约时间' meaning 'reservation time'), specifying it's based on mobile number. It distinguishes from sibling 'update_reservation_time_by_name' by indicating the lookup method. However, it doesn't specify what type of reservation system this is for or what exactly gets updated beyond time.

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 like 'update_reservation_time_by_name' (which uses name instead of mobile) or 'update_reservation_status' (which updates status rather than time). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or when this operation is appropriate versus creating/deleting reservations.

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