doubao_desktop_continue_task

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails: it never explains what the permission enum controls (notably FullAccess), whether sending is immediate or queued, or what a follow-up does to ongoing state. Only one behavioral trait (no automatic conversation selection) is disclosed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the key constraint is stated plainly and nothing is repeated.

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 3-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a permission enum that can grant FullAccess, the description is too thin. Key details the agent needs to call it safely and correctly are absent.

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 3 parameters. The description hints that a conversation must be specified (relevant to conversationId) but says nothing about the message constraints or the AlwaysAsk/AskOnRisk/FullAccess permission levels, which have real safety implications.

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 gives a specific verb ('send a follow-up') and resource ('existing Doubao desktop conversation'), making the operation identifiable. The qualifier 'existing' implicitly contrasts with the create_task sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Does not choose a conversation automatically' implies the caller must supply an existing conversation, giving some usage context. However, it never names when to prefer this over doubao_desktop_create_task or the read/wait/status siblings, so routing remains largely inferential.

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