derivation_update_saved

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral limitation—cannot modify the expression itself—and lists the updatable metadata fields. However, it does not explain how null values are handled (e.g., whether they leave fields unchanged or clear them), nor whether list fields like tags are replaced or merged. These are important update semantics that remain unclear.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, args, returns, and example. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool. The argument list is somewhat duplicative of the schema, but since schema coverage is 0%, it earns its place. The example is valuable and 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?

The tool is moderately complex with 11 parameters and no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description gives a good overview and example, yet misses critical update semantics: whether passing null means 'no change' and whether list-valued parameters replace or append to existing lists. These gaps could lead to incorrect usage, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. All 11 parameters are listed with Chinese semantic labels (e.g., '新名稱', '新描述', '驗證狀態'), adding meaning beyond bare names and types. The example usage further clarifies how parameters are used together. The labels are terse but sufficient to convey purpose.

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 metadata of saved derivations, with a specific verb '更新' and resource '已存檔推導的元資料'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools by noting it cannot modify the derivation expression itself, which differentiates it from derivation_update_step and other derivation manipulation tools.

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 clear context on what the tool does and explicitly states a key exclusion: '不能修改推導表達式本身' (cannot modify the expression). This tells the agent when not to use this tool, implying re-derivation is needed instead. However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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