update_estimated_effort

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or safety information. It merely states the update operation without additional context, leaving the agent unaware of potential impacts or requirements.

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 brief, consisting of one sentence with a parenthetical note. It is efficient but could benefit from a more structured format, such as separating the purpose clearly from the constraint.

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?

Given the 8 parameters and absence of output schema, the description provides essential context for the update action and mentions a key constraint. However, it does not explain return values or how this tool fits into a workflow, but it is reasonably complete for a focused update operation.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the agent gains no additional parameter context.

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 explicitly states '更新已登记的预计工时' (update registered estimated effort), clearly identifying the tool's action. It also distinguishes from an alternative path (update_work_item.customFieldValues), clarifying its specific 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 implies that this tool should be used for updating estimated effort because it is a controlled field, offering limited guidance. However, it does not compare with siblings like create_estimated_effort or update_effort_record, nor does it specify when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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