update_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists updatable fields and says 'revise', but fails to disclose partial-update semantics (merge vs replace), error handling for nonexistent concepts, validation results (e.g., flashcard existence), idempotency behavior (though the schema hints at it), or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front, followed by a compact field list. Every element contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It omits return behavior, error semantics, partial-update rules, prerequisites (e.g., concept must exist), and any guidance on idempotency_key usage, making it incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for source_refs (format), flashcard_ids (existence check), and idempotency_key (retry behavior), covering about 50% of parameters. The description adds a list of updatable fields, which is slightly redundant with the schema's properties but clarifies that concept_id and idempotency_key are not content fields to be modified.

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 uses the specific verb '修订' (revise) and targets the 'concept' resource, explicitly listing the four updatable fields (name / short_definition / source_refs / flashcard_ids). The word '已有' (existing) clearly distinguishes this from sibling tool add_concept, which creates new concepts.

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 implies when to use the tool ('revise existing concept') but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not state 'use add_concept for new concepts' or warn against misuse, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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