eda_lib_cbb_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides some useful behavior: the return is a boolean success indicator, and setting optional fields to null clears them. However, it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to the library relationship when libraryUuid is changed.

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 compact and efficient: a signature, a short Chinese purpose, a helpful remark about clearing fields with null, and a return hint. It front-loads the signature and avoids verbose filler, though the terse format slightly reduces readability.

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 positional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It lacks clear parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, side effects, and alternatives. The signature and null-clearing note are helpful but leave significant gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke the tool.

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 description includes the full method signature, giving parameter names and types (cbbUuid, libraryUuid, cbbName, classification, description), which adds value over the opaque 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of ILIB_ClassificationIndex, how libraryUuid relates to the modification, or how the signature maps into the args array, leaving the semantics incomplete.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'lib_Cbb.modify' and '修改复用模块' (modify reusable module). It is distinct from the create/delete/get/search siblings by naming 'modify' as the action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling CBB tools, such as eda_lib_cbb_create, eda_lib_cbb_delete, or eda_lib_cbb_get. The description implies modification of an existing module but does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion conditions.

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