start_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a mutation, what state it requires (robot online, task defined), what happens on failure, or whether it can be repeated. Two words cannot convey any behavioral traits.

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 text is short but that reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A two-word restatement of the name leaves the rest of the definition empty.

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 with three parameters, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The roles of robot_sn, fusion_task_id, and especially the optional loop_count are entirely undocumented in both the schema and 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 is essentially a bilingual restatement of the tool name ('启动任务 / Start task') with no additional scope or specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like resume_task, pause_task, or run_cleaning_task, which also operate on task lifecycle.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as resume_task, run_cleaning_task, and create_simple_schedule, the agent has no way to know which entry point applies to a given situation.

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