zentao_create_bug

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention safety (destructive vs. read-only), authorization needs, error handling, or idempotency. It only states the basic create action.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with 17 parameters, a slightly more structured description (e.g., listing key fields) would be beneficial.

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 complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain typical usage, return values, or how parameters relate. Users need more context to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning or examples beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not help in understanding parameter dependencies or required combinations.

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 action 'create' and resource 'bug' under a specified product, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, or list bugs. The Chinese text is precise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like zentao_update_bug or zentao_list_bugs. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any usage context.

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