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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: login required, server-side permission check, new assignee may be notified, omit-to-preserve vs null-to-clear semantics, and — critically — no persistent idempotency key, so ambiguous/timeout results must be verified by reading current values rather than retried. That retry-safety warning is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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 action, then permissions, then retry safety, then verification routing — good ordering with no filler. It is a dense semicolon-chained block that takes effort to parse, which keeps it below a 5 despite every clause earning its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, who can do it, what side effects fire, how to recover from an ambiguous failure, and which tool to read back with. 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 coverage is only 20% (only dueAt is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines the omit-preserve / null-clear contract for detail and dueAt, and flags the permission and notification consequences of assigneeId. It does not mention title's 2-80 length bound, but that is visible in the schema, leaving only a minor gap.

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 and resource ('更新任务标题、描述、截止' plus assignee swap) and immediately distinguishes the scope from set_collaboration_task_status. An agent can tell from the first clause exactly which fields this tool mutates versus its sibling.

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?

Explicit routing: status changes go to set_collaboration_task_status; assignee changes require assignment permission and are impossible on directly-assigned tasks (goalId=null). It also names the correct read-back tool per task type (get_collaboration_goal for goal tasks, list_collaboration_tasks for direct ones), so both the action and the fallback path are specified.

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