更新待补信息

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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it names two state transitions but doesn't disclose what happens to an existing answer when status changes, whether a dismissed question can be reopened, or any side effects on related data.

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 a single compact sentence that conveys the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the semantic gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an agent needs to understand the status state machine and required fields to call it correctly. This description covers only two of three possible statuses and omits the answer/status relationship, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It maps 'answer' and 'dismissed' status, but doesn't clarify that question_id identifies an existing record, that status is required, or the meaning of 'open' versus 'answered' statuses. The description only partially compensates for the undocumented 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 concrete actions: recording an answer to a question or marking it as ignored (记录问题的回答，或把问题标记为已忽略). This clearly identifies the resource (open questions) and the primary update operations, distinguishing it from sibling add/list tools by implication. It doesn't mention the 'open' status transition (reopening), so it is slightly incomplete.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus open_question_add or open_questions_list. The description only says what the tool does and does not name alternatives, exclusions, or workflow prerequisites, so an agent must infer the intended usage context.

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