修正错题

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the optimistic concurrency requirement (expected_version), the conflict resolution approach (re-read), and an important invariant ('编号不会改变' - number will not change). This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential side effects or idempotency semantics.

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 that conveys the core purpose, the critical prerequisite, and a key invariant. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the essential action and concurrency mechanism, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it omits guidance on constructing the patch object, the purpose of reason/idempotency_key, and partial-update semantics, making it less complete for a tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations.

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%, yet the description only explains one parameter (expected_version) and touches on '编号' (number) without detailing its role. The required parameters reason and idempotency_key are not explained at all, leaving the agent without sufficient understanding of why they are necessary or how to fill them.

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?

Description starts with '修正 OCR 文本、标签等内容' (correct OCR text, tags, etc.), clearly stating the action and target resource. This distinguishes it from sibling create_problem (creation) and get_problem (reading), 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 a clear prerequisite: '必须传入读取时获得的 expected_version' (must pass expected_version obtained when reading), establishing when to use the tool relative to get_problem. It also advises on conflict handling ('冲突时重新读取'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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