update_warning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update,' implying mutation, but does not reveal required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits.

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 front-loads the core action and resource. No unnecessary words; every part is informative.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of 7 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify partial update behavior, the effect on related entities, or how it fits into the broader workflow with siblings like batch_confirm_warnings.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond listing the updated fields, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 '更新报警信息（状态、确认信息等）' clearly states the verb (更新) and the resource (报警信息), specifying status and confirmation information. It distinguishes from specialized siblings like acknowledge_alarm and batch_confirm_warnings by implying general updates, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 usage for updating alarm fields like status and confirmation details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., acknowledge_alarm for specific status changes) or when not to use it.

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