update_record

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the behavioral traits are not disclosed. The description does not explain what happens on missing records, validation errors, or whether the operation is idempotent. The agent is left to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 sentence of only 5 Chinese characters, making it very concise. It wastes no words, but it could be more structured by including key information upfront. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool performs a mutation (update), the description should explain the return value (e.g., success message, updated record). It also does not address potential errors or constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient context for robust usage.

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 clear descriptions (tableName, id, data). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '更新表记录数据' clearly states that the tool updates table record data, which aligns with the name and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_record' or 'delete_record,' but the purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, get). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the table and record must exist, or when to prefer another tool.

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