yapi_interface_up

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are destructive, or any error handling, leaving the agent with no behavioral context beyond the vague 'update' action.

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?

While concise with only two characters, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient and poorly structured for tool selection.

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 complex mutation tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, success/failure conditions, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 17 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 '更新接口' (Update interface) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'yapi_interface_up' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'interface' refers to (e.g., API endpoint in YAPI) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_save' or 'yapi_interface_add', leaving the purpose vague.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from siblings like 'yapi_interface_save' or 'yapi_interface_add', making it impossible to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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