pls_update_tag

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint true). The description adds the confirm requirement and the tip to only send fields to modify, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or what constitutes destruction.

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 redundant elements like the emoji and brackets. The parameter list and return format are clearly presented, but the phrase '根据实体类型传入对应字段' is vague and could be more concise. Overall, it is not overly verbose but could be improved.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic return format and a tip. However, it does not fully describe the return object (e.g., possible values for 'action'), and the parameter guidance is generic. It is adequate for a simple update operation but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a generic hint about passing fields according to entity type and the confirm parameter requirement. This provides some value, but the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, so the description adds limited additional semantics.

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 it updates a tag entity ('更新标签实体'). The verb and resource are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pls_batch_update_tags or pls_create_tag, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 tip to pass only fields to change and requires a confirm parameter, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch update). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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