ed_edit_thread

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

The key behavioral trait '只改给出的字段，其余保留' (only change the given fields, keep the rest) is disclosed, which is valuable partial-update semantics not provided by annotations. Permission requirements are also mentioned. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) align with the edit operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those hints, though it doesn't cover error cases or return values.

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 concise sentence that conveys the main purpose, permission condition, and update behavior without any unnecessary words or repetition. Every clause serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 flat params, no nested objects) and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it edits, who can use it, and the partial-update behavior. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention the response format or error handling, which is a slight gap for a mutation tool. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has only 40% description coverage (content and thread_id described). The description compensates by stating that only provided fields are changed, implying all non-required params are optional and that the tool performs a partial update. This adds meaning beyond the schema's sparse descriptions, though individual field meanings for title, category, and subcategory are left to the agent's understanding.

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 '编辑已有的 Ed 帖子' (edit existing Ed posts), identifying the specific action and resource. It differentiates from creation tools like ed_post_thread by specifying '已有的' (existing) and from other siblings by focusing on editing. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool: it is for editing your own posts or requires faculty permission for others. This gives a clear condition for use, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like 'use ed_thread_action for non-content actions.' It implies usage but not a direct comparison with sibling tools.

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