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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing concrete behaviors: partial failure without rollback, per-task push notifications, assigneeId defaults to self, and per-item failure for non-members. It also warns against treating the operation as atomic, which is critical for correct use.

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 organized into compact labeled sections (需要登录/何时用/组合链/口径/坑), each carrying a distinct behavioral fact or workflow instruction. There is no filler, and the trigger condition is front-loaded in the second line.

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 non-idempotent, side-effecting batch tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the workflow (preview→confirm→落库→verify via get_collaboration_goal), failure modes, notification side effects, and preconditions. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 67%; the description compensates by explaining assigneeId omission (assign to self), preview=true semantics (real precheck), and the per-task push consequence embedded in the tasks item description. goalId is not explicitly explained but is a self-evident identifier from the parameter name and sibling context.

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 a specific verb ('派', dispatch) and resource ('任务进同一个目标', tasks into the same goal), and explicitly contrasts with the App's single-dispatch limit approximating the singular sibling create_collaboration_task. The scope (max 10, same goal) 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?

An explicit '何时用' (when to use) section names the trigger: user gives several tasks at once. It also identifies the alternative for non-collaborators (invite_collaboration_member) and notes the singular App path only dispatches one at a time. The combination chain additionally prescribes the correct order of operations.

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