update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'update fields'. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether empty-string defaults mean 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the field', whether changes are reversible, or what side effects occur on assignee reassignment — all critical for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the field list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence is fragmentary and could carry more load given how little else is said.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves out required-parameter handling, default-value semantics, and permission model — too many gaps to be complete.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It lists five field names but omits the required task_id and the 'agent' parameter, and — most damaging — it never explains the semantics of the empty-string defaults, which determine whether an omitted value is a no-op or a wipe.

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 names a specific verb (更新) and resource (任务), and enumerates the updatable fields (status/description/result/assignee/priority), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like complete_task or report_progress. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those closely related siblings.

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 clause '主理人可用来改派' implies a use case (the lead reassigning work) and hints at who should call it. However, it never states when to prefer it over complete_task, report_progress, or claim_task, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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