SetSuccessTaskInstances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. '置成功任务实例' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Set' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, what side effects might occur, or how the system responds. For a tool that appears to modify task instance states, this lack of behavioral information is critical.

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?

While technically concise with just four Chinese characters, this is a case of severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is so brief that it fails to communicate essential information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance beyond restating the tool name.

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?

For a tool that appears to modify task instance states (a potentially significant operation), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description that adds no value beyond the tool name, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand when and how to use this tool safely and effectively. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('Ids' and 'Comment') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema description coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 '置成功任务实例' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'SetSuccessTaskInstances' in Chinese. It provides no additional information about what the tool actually does, what 'success' means in this context, or what resource is being modified. While it implies setting task instances to a success state, this is merely restating the name without clarifying the specific action or purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that manipulate task instances (e.g., RerunTaskInstances, ResumeTaskInstances, StopTaskInstances, UpdateTaskInstances), but the description offers no differentiation. It doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this operation should be preferred over other task instance management tools.

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