advisor_create_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 reveals key behaviors: existing bindings are reused and renamed, while force_new=True creates a new kimi session. It also imposes a naming constraint (task_name in short Chinese). It does not mention side effects like overwriting, but the primary behaviors are disclosed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in behavioral rules and naming guidance. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main workflow (reuse vs new session) and partially explains parameters, but it omits clarification for goal and context, which are important for usage. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the tool's integration with the current conversation and its relation to sibling tools could be more explicit. Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains task_name (use short Chinese name) and force_new (only opens new session when true), but provides no meaning for goal or context. With 4 parameters, only half are semantically clarified, leaving required goal and optional context ambiguous.

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 '登记当前对话的顾问咨询' clearly states a specific verb and resource: registering the current conversation's advisor consultation. It distinguishes from siblings by describing the registration/create behavior and the reuse/new-session logic, which is not mentioned for other tools.

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 gives clear context: register the advisor consultation for the current conversation. It also provides a specific usage rule for force_new ('已有绑定则复用(改名),force_new=True 才新开 kimi 会话'), explaining when to set the flag. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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