修改机构标签

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only '成功返回操作结果' (returns operation result on success), which is vague and does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. Minimal additional value beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by parameter and return sections. The structure is clean, though the parameter list is partially redundant with the schema, it does not waste words.

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 simple update tool, the description covers the core operation and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling details, and clarification on how this tool relates to sibling label management tools. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by the vague return statement, but not fully.

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 100%, with all properties described in the schema. The description repeats labelId and labelName but adds no new meaning, and omits response_format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 '修改机构标签名称' (modify institution label name), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_school_label and delete_school_label by specifying the modification of the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus adding or deleting labels. The description only lists parameters and return value, with no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use.

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