zentao_assign_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the action without revealing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or whether notifications are sent. This is a critical gap.

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 a single short phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structural elements like sentences or bullet points and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling feedback tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's purpose within the feedback lifecycle or provide context for proper usage.

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%, and the schema descriptions (e.g., '反馈 ID', '指派给（用户 account）') are clear. The tool description adds no parameter information, but since the schema already documents all parameters, the description meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 '指派禅道反馈' is essentially a translation of the tool name 'assign feedback', offering no additional specificity. It fails to distinguish the assignment action from similar operations like 'update_feedback' or 'close_feedback', which may also modify assignment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_feedback' or 'close_feedback'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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