zentao_update_execution

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. However, it only states 'modify' and omits any details about required permissions, response format, or what operations are performed during the update. The schema describes fields but not tool-level behavior.

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 extremely short (4 words in Chinese) but fails to convey essential information. While conciseness is valued, here it under-specifies the tool's purpose and behavior. Important details about mandatory parameters, usage context, and output are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at minimum clarify that 'id' is required and that other fields are optional updates. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how partial updates work. The description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema achieves 100% description coverage for all 16 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema already documents each field, the description is not penalized further.

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 '修改禅道执行' merely translates the tool name 'zentao_update_execution' to Chinese, offering no additional specificity or scope. It states 'modify execution' but does not distinguish this update tool from sibling tools like create or delete executions, and lacks any differentiation from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zentao_create_execution or zentao_delete_execution. There is no context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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