调整错题优先级

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and delivers useful context: delta range, 14-day half-life decay, and assurance that FSRS is not tampered with or reviews faked. It does not cover edge cases like invalid numbers, but the provided behavior is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every sentence serves a purpose: usage, parameter meaning, or alternative. No wasted words.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and usage context well. Missing details on idempotency_key usage and edge cases are minor but would strengthen completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains delta's range and meaning, but the other three parameters (number, reason, idempotency_key) are left undefined beyond their names. This leaves a clear gap in parameter 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 the tool adjusts priority of a numbered problem, with the trigger condition '仅在用户明确要求提高或降低某编号优先级时调用'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling record_review, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only when user explicitly requests priority change') and names the alternative tool record_review for the case where the user reports a mistake. This is clear usage differentiation.

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