zentao_update_feedback

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. '修改禅道反馈' implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether partial updates are supported. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 very short (5 Chinese characters) and to the point, but it sacrifices informational depth. It is not verbose, but the brevity may hinder understanding. A balance would be improved.

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 has 10 parameters, a complex mutation operation, and lacks annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), dependencies, or return values.

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% with each parameter described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 '修改禅道反馈' clearly indicates the verb (modify) and resource (feedback), distinguishing it from create, delete, list, get, assign, and close siblings. However, it is brief and does not elaborate on the scope of modifications.

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 like zentao_assign_feedback or zentao_close_feedback. The description lacks usage context or prerequisites.

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