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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it declares a WRITE/POST action, route, auth requirements, claimant-only and idempotent facade criteria, and transparent passthrough of readings. It does not specify the exact response shape or state-transition side effect, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and workflow order, then grouped into route, required parameter, credentials, and state-machine rules. It is dense but has some bilingual redundancy (WRITE/写动作, order repeated in both languages), so not a perfect 5.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, it covers workflow position, auth, route, and idempotency, which is enough to invoke correctly. The main gap is no description of the return value or error behavior, magnified by the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; task_id and auth are already documented with examples. The description mainly restates requiredness and auth modes rather than adding new format or syntax detail.

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?

Description opens with a precise operation: Start work on a task you claimed (WRITE), and reinforces the resource and scope. The stated ordering claim, start, deliver plus the Chinese state-machine rule clearly differentiates it from qy_claim and qy_deliver.

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?

Explicitly positions the call in the workflow: it must be after qy_claim and before qy_deliver. It also gives two credential modes (session auto-sign after qy_register vs. cross-session auth object), so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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