修改消息 token

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a modification operation, lists required/optional parameters, provides a default for expireTime, and explains the response structure. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens when the token does not exist — limited for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: endpoint and purpose first, then request params, then response format. Every sentence carries relevant information with no fluff. The formatting is dense but clear.

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 tool with 3 flat parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the operation, parameter details, and response format, including a data example. Missing annotation-driven safety context is offset by the clarity of the 'edit' verb.

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 three parameters already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same information (id, name, expireTime with default), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: '修改消息 token' (modify message token), with the HTTP endpoint included. This clearly identifies the action and the target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools by the edit semantics. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the add/delete token siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb '修改' (modify) — an agent can infer this is for updating an existing token's name or expiration. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over open_token_add or open_token_delete, nor any stated conditions or exclusions.

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