ecosystem_start_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose concrete mutation effects: adds lifecycle:integrated, advances stage_status, and returns a task_payload. It also draws an ownership boundary (ecosystem 不接管实施). Auth/permission and failure behavior are not covered, so it falls short of 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-loads the pipeline stage and primary actions, and each sentence adds a distinct instruction (effects, payload shape, follow-up call, ownership boundary). The trailing Chinese clause and parenthetical list of payload fields add slight density without waste.

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 chained mutation tool with an output schema and full param coverage, the description supplies the worked sequence and the ownership model. It is nearly complete; only permission/prerequisite detail is left entirely to the 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 schema already documents all six parameters; per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description adds the note that task_payload fields map one-to-one onto task_create's parameters, which is useful but pertains to output, not to input parameter semantics.

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+resource and its pipeline position ('Stage 3 integrate path'), plus the concrete actions: build a task_create payload and tag the repo. It names the siblings it interacts with (task_create, ecosystem_link_integration_task), so an agent can place it precisely without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly states when it applies (stage 3 integrate path) and gives explicit sequencing — after completion the agent must call ecosystem_link_integration_task to write integration_task_id back. It does not state when NOT to use it or the deep_review_id prerequisite beyond what the schema says, so not a full 5.

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