更新商品

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds a behavioral guarantee not captured in annotations: it will not alter publication channels. This is meaningful context for tool selection. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with the action front-loaded and the key constraint following. Every word carries meaning, no redundancy, and it is immediately scannable.

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 simple update operation, the description plus annotations provide a usable picture: idempotent, non-destructive, and preserving publication channels. However, with 8 parameters and 0% schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves parameter semantics and return behavior to inference, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only groups fields under '基础信息' without explaining individual parameters, value formats, or relationships. The schema provides property names and types, but the agent is left to infer semantics from names alone.

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 action ('update') on a specific resource ('product') and adds a scope constraint ('basic info'), which clearly separates it from publish/unpublish siblings. The exclusion '不改变发布渠道' further sharpens the purpose.

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 explicitly says it does not change publication channels, which tells the agent when NOT to use it relative to publish/unpublish tools. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tools for channel changes, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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