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

Annotations only declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds auth requirements (login + OWNER/ADMIN), the downstream effect (recipient sees the task in 「组织任务」), and a concrete failure mode (non-registered assignee yields organization_forbidden). This is real behavioral context 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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (login + OWNER/ADMIN) and uses bracketed sections for chain and pitfalls. It is dense and information-rich, but every sentence earns its place, with only minor redundancy between the auth header and the pitfalls section.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still covers prerequisites, the multi-step workflow, the downstream visibility, the parameter disambiguation, and the error case. For a mutation tool with annotations present, nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: assigneeId is the userId and explicitly NOT the membershipId, it must be a registered real member, and dueAt requires a timezone-bearing ISO string with a worked example. It does not elaborate on organizationId/title/detail, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb (新建/create) plus resource (任务/task) and the assignment target (一位在册成员), and scopes it to the organization context with the 「组织任务」visibility note. An agent can distinguish it from create_collaboration_task or create_goal_recruit_need without opening any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit chaining recipe: list_organization_members to obtain user.id as assigneeId, confirm with the user, then call this tool, then use list_my_organization_tasks / set_organization_task_status for progress. It names the alternatives for related operations and the condition that selects each.

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