doubao_desktop_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the call returns conversationId and runId, and the task result must be inspected separately (i.e. the send is asynchronous and does not block on completion). It says nothing about the permission model, whether this drives a real GUI session, latency, or failure modes when the workspace does not exist.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the workspace constraint, with the return contract second. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is clipped enough to read as terse rather than deliberate.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, yet the description addresses only the async return pattern. For a tool that launches an autonomous desktop session with a configurable permission level, the omission of permission semantics and workspace preconditions leaves the agent without what it needs to invoke it safely.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. The 'permission' enum (AlwaysAsk / AskOnRisk / FullAccess) is safety-critical — it governs how much autonomy the desktop agent gets — and is completely undocumented in both schema and description. 'existing local workspace' only loosely gestures at the workspace parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('send a new task to a real Doubao desktop conversation in an existing local workspace') and the scope constraint is explicit. The word 'new' implicitly contrasts with the sibling doubao_desktop_continue_task, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the distinction from vocabulary alone.

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?

'in an existing local workspace' quietly encodes a precondition, and 'inspect task result independently' hints that the agent must follow up with doubao_desktop_read/status/wait rather than expecting a result here. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the routing is left to inference.

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