pls_update_area

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the confirmation requirement and return format, but does not elaborate on what makes the operation destructive or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise: 5 lines with an emoji, bullet points for parameters, and a return format. Every sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description is moderately complete. It explains confirmation and partial updates but fails to mention that 'id' is essential for an update operation, leaving a gap for the agent.

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%, and the description only reiterates the confirm parameter and a vague '根据实体类型传入对应字段' (pass corresponding fields based on entity type). It adds the tip to only send changed fields but does not clarify that 'id' is likely required for update, which is missing from the description.

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 '更新区域实体' (update area entity), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like pls_create_area and pls_delete_area.

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 via '确认+只传需改字段' (confirm + only pass fields to change), and the confirmation parameter is emphasized. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though context with siblings makes it clear.

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