SuspendTaskInstances

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. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether suspension is reversible, what happens to dependent tasks, or any side effects. The single phrase provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action name.

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 three Chinese characters, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is so minimal that it fails to provide necessary context. A truly concise description would still include essential information about the tool's purpose and usage in a compact form.

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 mutation tool (suspend implies state change) with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that perform similar operations on task instances, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what suspension means, how it differs from stopping, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to use this tool appropriately.

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

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 '暂停任务实例' (Suspend task instances) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'SuspendTaskInstances' in Chinese. While it clearly indicates the action (suspend) and target (task instances), it doesn't provide any additional specificity about what 'suspend' means operationally or how it differs from related tools like 'StopTaskInstances' or 'ResumeTaskInstances' in the sibling list.

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 several related tools in the sibling list (StopTaskInstances, ResumeTaskInstances, RerunTaskInstances, SetSuccessTaskInstances) that appear to operate on task instances, but the description offers no differentiation or context about when suspension is appropriate versus stopping, resuming, or other operations.

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