pls_update_anchor

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the confirm parameter is required for secondary confirmation (must be '确认'), and it encourages partial updates. This goes beyond the annotations. It could mention side effects like cascading updates, but it is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, fitting the key information into a few lines. It front-loads the action with an emoji and clear verb, follows with parameter notes and return format, and ends with a tip. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 basic operation, confirmation requirement, and partial update advice. However, it does not clarify that the 'id' parameter is essential for updating an anchor (though it is not schema-required). Given that the output schema is absent and annotations provide destructive context, some behavioral gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds a usage tip ('只传需改字段') and reiterates the confirm requirement, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states '更新基站实体' (update anchor entity), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pls_create_anchor and pls_delete_anchor. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from pls_batch_update_anchors, but the singular update 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pls_batch_update_anchors for multiple updates. It mentions '只传需改字段' (only pass fields to be changed) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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