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

Beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses permission gating (OWNER/ADMIN), the assignment being visible to the assignee in「组织任务」, and the specific error returned for an invalid assignee. It does not state whether the assignee is notified, whether the call is idempotent, or what identifier the response returns, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 auth prerequisite and action statement, then compresses the whole workflow into a short arrow chain. Dense but every clause carries operational value; the arrow-separated phrasing is slightly terse to parse but not wasteful.

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 no-output-schema mutation with a fully described 5-parameter schema, the description covers authorization, parameter pitfalls, error behavior, and the surrounding list/update workflow. The only meaningful omission is what the tool returns (e.g., created task id) and whether the assignee receives a notification.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real disambiguation: assigneeId is a userId, explicitly NOT a membershipId, and must map to a registered human member. It also reinforces dueAt as ISO with timezone and gives a concrete example. organizationId and detail get no extra treatment, hence 4 rather than 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?

"在组织里新建一条任务并指派给一位在册成员" gives a specific verb (新建/指派), resource (组织任务), and scope (在册成员), which separates it from create_collaboration_task, create_direct_collaboration_task, and create_task_series. It also names the downstream siblings that read and update this object, so an agent can place the tool in the workflow without opening another 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 ordered recipe: list_organization_members to get user.id → confirm with the user → call this tool → track via list_my_organization_tasks / set_organization_task_status. It also states the precondition (需要登录·OWNER/ADMIN) and the failure mode (非在册成员报 organization_forbidden), leaving little to inference.

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