update_prop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'modify prop' and 'free', but does not disclose whether partial updates merge or overwrite fields, whether reference_images replaces the entire array, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 states the operation and its targets efficiently. The '免费' note is marginal but not harmful; the core message is compact.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits update semantics, return value, and key constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the schema and sibling names.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It lists the updatable fields in Chinese, which helps map 'physical_size_hint' to '尺寸' and 'reference_images' to '多视角参考图', but it adds no value constraints, formats, or meaning for 'type', 'prompt', or 'description'. It also fails to explain the required prop_id beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific action '改' (modify) with the resource '道具' (prop) and lists the editable fields (name/type/description/prompt/size/multi-view reference images). This clearly identifies it as the update operation in the CRUD family, although it does not explicitly contrast it with create_prop/delete_prop/get_props.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_prop or delete_prop, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The '改' verb implies updating an existing prop, but the alternatives are never mentioned.

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