update_experience

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: partial updates (unsent fields unchanged) and an automatic desensitization/validation step before modification. However, it omits permission requirements, whether a status change via this tool clashes with the status-specific siblings, and how soft-deletion/deleted status behaves, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and dense with semantics, but the parameter list restates the schema property names and mostly repeats the field titles, adding bulk without proportional value. Restructuring to keep the partial-update guarantee and status enum as the headline, then dropping redundant glosses, would 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and required/optional parameters are covered. Yet for a mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and four transition-based siblings, the description doesn't say when this tool is preferred over approve/reject/delete/restore, nor what the desensitization check does on failure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It partly does: it enumerates every parameter with a Chinese gloss and, crucially, provides the enum values for status (approved/draft/rejected/deleted) that the schema lacks. But several parameters get tautological glosses ('tool_code: 新工具代码', 'title: 新标题') that add no format, length, or validation detail, so coverage remains incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('更新一条经验'), and clarifies the partial-update semantics ('只更新传入的字段'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like add_experience or the approve/reject list, so it falls short of a 5, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the many status-transition siblings (approve_experience, reject_experience, delete_experience, restore_experience), an agent can't tell whether to use this generic updater or the dedicated status tools. The precondition of running a desensitization check is mentioned but not framed as usage guidance.

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