pls_update_goods

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

Annotations indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds that a confirm parameter with value '确认' is required, which transparently signals the irreversible nature of the update. The return format is also documented. No contradictions.

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?

Description is brief but well-structured: a title line, bullet points for parameters and return, and a helpful tip. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more fluid but very concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return structure. It also notes the confirmation requirement and the pattern of only including changed fields. For a simple update tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could clarify that the id parameter identifies the goods.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the confirm requirement and adds the tip to only pass changed fields, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

Title and description clearly state '更新物品实体' (update goods entity). Distinguishes from siblings (create_goods, delete_goods). Could be more specific about which fields are updatable but overall clear.

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?

Description includes a tip '确认+只传需改字段' (confirm + only pass changed fields) which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having an existing goods ID.

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