更新投递记录

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose one valuable side effect: 状态变更会自动写入历史 (status changes auto-write history). But it omits permissions/auth needs, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, and whether updates are reversible or partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the notable side effect second. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the 6-parameter surface.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description is thin. It covers the status history side effect but leaves update semantics, the enum, and the other three fields entirely to the schema, which provides no descriptions either.

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 0% across 6 params, so the description must compensate but only names 3 of 6 (status/notes/salary). It says nothing about channel, matchScore, or id, and gives no meaning for the 11-value status enum that the agent must choose from.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (更新投递记录) and enumerates the mutable fields (状态/备注/薪资), making it distinguishable from application_add/application_list/application_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus application_add or add_application_record, no prerequisites, and no mention of the partial-update nature (only id is required) despite 5 optional fields. The agent must infer all usage context.

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