todo_transition_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a real status change, requires a prior preview and adjudication, and automatically writes completed_at when transitioning to done. However, it omits information about error handling, permissions, or what happens if the prerequisite is not met.

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 concise, using a single sentence with a parenthetical to convey both purpose and key constraints. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. Still, the description leaves gaps about what counts as a valid 'new_status' (beyond 'done') and what '裁决' entails, which are important for correct use in the context of sibling tools.

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 for the bare parameter names. It adds some meaning by mentioning the value 'done' for new_status and its side effect, but it does not explain item_id or enumerate valid statuses, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 it actually transitions a todo item's status, using the verb '流转' (transition) with the resource '事项状态' (todo status). It also distinguishes from sibling preview tools by explicitly noting the need to preview first and pass adjudication.

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 phrase '需先 preview 且通过裁决' provides clear guidance that this tool should only be used after running a preview and obtaining approval, effectively signaling when to use it versus alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes the usage order clear.

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