ecosystem_start_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the tool adds a tag, advances stage_status, and returns a ready-to-post payload. This sufficiently discloses state changes and output without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose first, followed by action steps and a follow-up note. The Chinese line about ownership is slightly extraneous for English-agent contexts but adds important context. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (producing a payload for an external API, requiring a follow-up call), the description covers all necessary steps: what it does, what it returns, and what to do next. It also clarifies that ecosystem does not own the implementation, which is critical for correct multi-step workflow.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema for parameters; it restates the same info (e.g., 'Optional task title (auto-generated if empty)'). Thus, it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to build a task_create payload and tag the repo during Stage 3 integration. It explicitly names the sibling follow-up tool, setting it apart. The verb 'build' and specific actions 'adds tag', 'advances stage_status' are unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use this tool (Stage 3 integrate path) and references the next step (call ecosystem_link_integration_task). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or compare to alternatives, relying on context.

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