pls_update_building

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with update. The description adds the return format {success: true/false, entity, action} and mentions the confirm safety mechanism, but does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond 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 relatively short and includes a header, parameter list, return format, and tip. It is efficient but slightly unstructured with mixed Chinese and emojis.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. It includes the return format (no output schema provided) and a usage tip, though it omits prerequisites or permissions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's parameter section is redundant with the schema, but adds the guidance '只传需改字段' (only pass changed fields), which provides marginal extra value.

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 verb '更新' (update) and the resource '楼栋实体' (building entity), directly differentiating it from sibling tools like pls_create_building and pls_delete_building.

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 provides a hint '确认+只传需改字段' (confirm + only pass fields to be changed) and requires the confirm parameter. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the name and context make it clear for updating existing buildings.

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