task.begin

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavior an agent needs: this call returns a task_id that must be threaded through task.note/task.end, which is genuine lifecycle context. However, it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, concurrency (can two tasks run at once?), or failure modes for a tool that clearly opens a stateful session.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose, example, and the return/follow-up contract in essentially two clauses. No filler, though the example is embedded after the fact rather than being a separate line an agent could skip.

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 single-parameter, fully-documented schema with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it opens, what it returns (task_id), and how the id is reused downstream. Only the stateful side effects of beginning a task are left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by supplying a concrete example goal ('领所有商品的券') that clarifies the expected abstraction level beyond the schema's terse '业务目标一句话'.

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 (开始/begin) and resource (业务任务/business task), and distinguishes itself from its siblings by explicitly naming task.note and task.end as the follow-up consumers of the returned task_id. An agent can identify this as the task-lifecycle entry point without opening 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?

The description makes the workflow ordering clear: declare the goal here, then pass the returned task_id to task.note/task.end. The example goal ('领所有商品的券') shows the required granularity of intent. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. if a task is already open), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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