create_estimated_effort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the special nature of the field (controlled field) and that the operation is a registration action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing values, or if it requires any additional prerequisites beyond the parameters. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences, with the first providing the verb and resource, and the second adding critical context about the field's control. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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 is sufficiently complete for a CRUD-like tool with a clear verb and special constraint. It explains the uniqueness of this tool relative to update_work_item. Given that there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It does not list prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple registration tool with a well-defined purpose, this is adequate.

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%, so all 7 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the key semantic that spentTime maps to the estimated effort field (fieldId 101586) and that the tool is required for this field. However, it does not explain the relationship between owner, spentTime, and id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: to register estimated effort (预计工时) for a work item in Yunxiao. It specifies the exact field (fieldId 101586) and explains that it cannot be modified via update_work_item's customFieldValues, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_work_item and create_effort_record.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the estimated effort field (a controlled field) needs to be set, and explicitly notes that update_work_item cannot be used for this purpose. It provides a clear alternative (update_work_item) that should not be used for this specific field, giving strong usage guidance.

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