task_change_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the change is immediate, if there are any side effects (e.g., moving task to archive), or if there are restrictions on transitions. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent unaware of potential consequences beyond the status change.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of one sentence that defines the tool's purpose and lists the statuses. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the enum list, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 simple status change tool with 2 parameters and an enum, the description is minimal. It meets the basic need of informing the agent of allowed statuses, but it does not explain the context of task status transitions, any prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or what happens on success/failure. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should fill more gaps but does not.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema ('任务ID' and '目标状态'). The description adds Chinese labels for the status enum values, but since the schema already includes English enum values and brief descriptions, the description adds marginal value. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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?

The description states the specific verb '变更' (change) and resource '任务状态' (task status), and lists the allowed enum values with Chinese labels. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'task_update', which likely also changes task attributes. The description is clear about what it does but could be more explicit about its unique role among similar siblings.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists allowed statuses but does not mention any conditions for transitioning between statuses (e.g., cannot go from 'completed' to 'not_started') or when to use 'task_update' instead. Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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