Modify an existing GS cleaning robot task definition by robot serial and task ID, optionally changing name, work mode, loop count, maps, or advanced settings.
更新任务定义 / Update task definition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | No | ||
| robot_sn | Yes | ||
| task_name | No | ||
| work_mode | No | ||
| loop_count | No | ||
| fusion_task_id | Yes | ||
| map_resource_list | No | ||
| task_advance_config | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing: not whether omitted optional fields are cleared or preserved, not the required permissions, not reversibility, and not the result of the update. This is a serious gap for a 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?
Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than economy. The single restated phrase earns no informational place and leaves the definition unusable on its own.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is wholly inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?
Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage and a description that mentions none of them. The agent must guess the semantics of work_mode, loop_count, map_resource_list, and task_advance_config (nested objects) with no help from either source.
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 a bilingual restatement of the tool name ('更新任务定义 / Update task definition'), adding no scope, resource detail, or distinguishing information. It doesn't clarify what aspect of the task definition is updated or how it differs from create_task_definition or get_task_definition.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings like create_task_definition, delete_task_definition, or update_schedule. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.