更新待办

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose one high-value side effect: status=已完成 with a non-empty repeat auto-generates the next occurrence. However, it says nothing about partial-update semantics, permissions, whether clearing a field is possible, or what the response contains – significant gaps for a 15-param mutation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the conditional side effect front-loaded after the base action. No filler, though it is terse enough to border on under-specification for the parameter surface.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs: which fields are writable, partial vs full update, and return behavior are all missing.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate – it only explains the interaction of status and repeat. Formats for dueDate, tags, subtasks, reminders, linkId/linkType, projectId, priority and the meaning of order are entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (更新待办) that is clearly distinct from todo.create/todo.delete/todo.list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus todo.create or the recurring.* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the todo exist, is id required, can fields be partially updated). Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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