pls_update_person

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the important requirement for secondary confirmation via the confirm parameter and specifies the return format {success, entity, action}. This goes beyond annotations by detailing a required safety step and output structure.

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 but includes some unnecessary elements like emoji and mixed language (Chinese with English terms). It front-loads the main purpose, but the bullet list of parameters could be more streamlined. Every sentence has some value, but the structure could be tighter.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important details. It does not explain that the 'id' parameter is required (schema shows it's not in required, but description says required for update? Actually schema says id is required for update? Wait, schema required only includes confirm. But description implies id is needed. It also does not clarify the 'entity type' reference, which is confusing. The return format is given, but behavioral aspects like partial update semantics and id requirement are insufficiently addressed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents parameter meanings. The description adds little extra meaning, only stating that fields should be passed corresponding to the entity type (which is fixed for person). The list of parameters in the description is redundant with the schema.

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 states '更新人员实体' (update person entity), which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from create and delete siblings by implying modification, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like pls_update_tag or pls_update_car.

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 change), which guides usage by specifying required confirmation and partial updates. However, it does not offer explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like pls_create_person or pls_delete_person.

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