skip_task_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the skip is reversible, what happens to the current task execution, whether the robot must be online/busy, or what errors can occur. A single bilingual phrase is far below the bar for a mutation-style operation.

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?

Short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no structure, no front-loaded constraint, and no sentence that earns its place beyond echoing the 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 one-required-parameter robot operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing about scope, effect, or return behavior is covered.

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% for the sole required parameter robot_sn, and the description adds no meaning whatsoever about it. The agent gets no hint of the identifier's format, source, or role in deciding which item is skipped.

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?

"Skip task item" merely restates the tool name in two languages; there is no verb+resource elaboration beyond the name itself. It gives no indication of what a "task item" is, or how skipping relates to tasks, schedules, or robot execution, so siblings like stop_task, pause_task, and run_cleaning_task cannot be distinguished from it.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. An agent cannot tell whether this is preferable to stop_task or pause_task, nor what prerequisites (an active task? a queued item?) must hold.

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