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

Annotations already mark destructive=true, and the description adds the crucial nuance annotations cannot express: title/detail/assignee edits rewrite only unfinished occurrences while completed history is preserved, and active=false merely pauses future generation rather than deleting. It also states the auth requirement and the 'at least one field' validation rule.

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 login gate, then packed tight with every clause carrying weight (constraints, rewrite scope, active semantics, anti-pattern, verification). It is a dense single block without line breaks, which slightly hurts scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, required-field validation, rewrite scope, the pause-vs-delete distinction, the sibling alternative, and the verification tool. 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 only 17% (endDate alone is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that at least one field must change, that assigneeId must resolve to a target collaborator, and that active=false has pause-only semantics. Only endDate's concrete format is left to the schema, so compensation is strong though not exhaustive.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (改现有周期规则) with scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling stop_task_series, which handles the 'stop and recreate' case. An agent can tell these apart without opening either 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 when-not rule ('不要停掉再建' – don't stop then rebuild) and names the alternative tool (stop_task_series) plus its behavior (cancels unstarted occurrences). It also points to get_collaboration_goal as the verification step, giving both the exclusion and the follow-up.

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