dingtalk_aitable_record_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that existing record field values are updated, but does not mention whether this is a partial or full replace, what happens if a recordId does not exist, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure 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 description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core action and target. There is no wasted wording or fluff. It earns its place by being clear and direct, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected return values, error conditions, partial vs full updates, or how the 'records' parameter interacts with existing data. This is a significant gap for an update operation, though the tool is part of a larger AITable family where some context is implicit.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (base_id, table_id, records) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter context beyond the operation name. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or format.

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 the action ('更新' - update) and the resource ('数据表中已有记录的字段值' - field values of existing records in a data table). This differentiates it from sibling tools like record_create or record_delete, which handle creation and deletion respectively.

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 provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for updating existing records, there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool should be chosen (e.g., record_create for new records, record_query for reading).

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