task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that update auto-syncs tasks.md checkboxes across all IDEs and linked issue status, and that archive moves all tasks in a feature group to an archive table. However, it does not describe delete permanence, batch_create failure behavior, list read-only nature, or permission/auth requirements.

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 front-loaded with the tool's scope and action list, then adds only the most important behavioral notes for update and archive. It is concise and well-structured, though it could more clearly separate action-specific usage conditions.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is only partially complete. It covers update and archive side effects but leaves delete, batch_create, and list behavior largely inferred from names and schema, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including tasks, title, status, task_id, and feature_id. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource (任务) and the available actions (batch_create/update/list/delete/archive), giving a specific verb+resource overview. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as track, but the task-management scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the action names and by action-specific notes for update and archive, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use each action versus alternatives, nor when not to use this tool. The schema adds a required-feature_id condition for list, but the description itself does not state it.

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