Adds a date or date-range field to a form by binding a DatePicker component to a specified field path, supporting single, range, start, or end value kinds for template design.
添加一条检测日期字段绑定（DatePicker / DatePicker.RangePicker）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 配置项 ID | |
| path | Yes | 表单字段路径（name） | |
| title | No | 显示标题，默认自动生成 | |
| component | Yes | 组件类型 | |
| valueKind | Yes | 取值方式 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add' without explaining side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or impact on existing data. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.
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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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?
The description is minimal, offering no context about the tool's role in the form configuration system, its relationship to other detection-date tools, or expected outcomes. Given 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage context.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline.
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 the action ('add') and resource ('detection date field binding') with the specific component types (DatePicker / DatePicker.RangePicker). It distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_detection_date_item and list_detection_date_items by denoting an add operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_detection_date or add_component. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.