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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the lower bar applies. The description usefully adds that no payment is charged and no new task is created automatically when out of scope, but it does not disclose how quota is consumed, what credential authorizes the change, or how request_key deduplication works.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the second half is a dense chain of conditional clauses separated by semicolons that would read more clearly as distinct sentences. No filler text, but structure is serviceable rather than effective.

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 mutation tool with annotations, an output schema present, and five fully required parameters, the description covers scope limits and the no-side-effect guarantee. What it omits is parameter meaning and quota-consumption mechanics, which an agent needs to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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% across five required parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. change_kind's enum values (tone/structure/correction/new_material/new_task) are especially critical for routing behavior and are left completely undocumented, as are the credential format and the idempotency role of request_key.

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 states the core action (modify the same task within the revision quota declared for this order) but relies on an unclear referent ('本单') and never names the resource being modified (delivery, copy, service output). An agent can form a rough idea, but the scope of the mutation remains ambiguous relative to siblings like create_order or prepare_task.

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?

It explicitly says some deliverables/tools do not include revisions, and that out-of-scope requests return a new quote or requires_new_service with user confirmation required first. That is real guidance about the boundary between revising and re-ordering, though no sibling tool is named as the alternative.

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