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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the single annotation: login requirement, self-assignment default, notification on assigning to others, authorization requirements for person and content, server-side relationship verification, a 50-per-Beijing-calendar-day rate limit, and the absence of a deduplication key with timeout handling instructions.

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 dense and front-loaded with the most critical information (login requirement, core action). Every clause carries new information, though the run-on semicolon-separated style is slightly harder to scan than distinct sentences.

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's complexity (5 parameters, mutation, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers authorization, notifications, rate limits, verification steps, and retry behavior, and explicitly notes the response shape (goalId=null). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining assigneeId (defaults to self, notifies others) and organizationId (organization label with server verification). Title and detail semantics are left to the schema constraints, which is acceptable given their straightforward nature.

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 it creates/assigns a task directly without attaching a goal ('不挂目标直接派任务'), distinguishing it from goal-attached task creation. It names the verb (派任务), the resource (task), and the key differentiator (goalId=null).

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: use list_collaboration_task_assignees to find people, use list_collaboration_tasks to verify, and query current state after timeout instead of retrying. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling create_collaboration_task as the alternative when a goal attachment is desired, though '不挂目标' implies it.

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