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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true): it discloses that reuse notifies the new assignee, that omitted fields are preserved while detail/dueAt=null clears, that permissions are validated server-side, and critically that there is no persistent idempotency key so a timeout must be followed by a read rather than a resend. This is consistent with and richer than the structured hints.

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-loaded with the 【需要登录】 precondition and dense with substantive constraints rather than filler, but the reassign/null/retry/verification clauses run together in one long paragraph, which slightly hurts scanability for an agent parsing constraints.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 5 params, it covers the full picture: auth, permission gating, field-clearing semantics, notification side effects, retry protocol, and how to verify state afterwards. Nothing needed 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 only 20% (only dueAt is documented in the schema), so the description carries the load and does: it explains omit-preserves vs null-clears for detail/dueAt, the ISO-8601-with-timezone expectation, and the special reassignment rules for assigneeId. It adds material meaning the schema lacks.

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 (update) plus the exact mutable fields (title, detail, dueAt, assignee) and explicitly separates the concern from the sibling set_collaboration_task_status. An agent can distinguish it from create_collaboration_task and set_collaboration_task_status without reading 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?

Gives when-to-use routing ('状态用 set_collaboration_task_status'), prerequisites (login required, assignment permission for reassignment, cannot change assignee on directly-dispatched tasks with goalId=null), and post-failure verification alternatives (get_collaboration_goal for goal-attached, list_collaboration_tasks for direct). Nothing is left to inference.

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