同步额度续跑调度状态

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, read-only behavior, and destructiveness, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the sync trigger and target, but does not explain what happens to existing policy state, whether optional fields are ignored in certain states, or what happens on conflicting state transitions.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. It conveys the key trigger and target efficiently, although it sacrifices behavioral depth for brevity.

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 mutating tool with five parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotation context, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine how optional parameters interact with the required state transition, what the sync does semantically, or when to prefer this over the sibling set_prewarm_state tool.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It implies that the 'state' parameter reflects the policy state being synced, but it gives no meaning for id, nextRunAt, lastMessage, or automationId, leaving an agent without enough context to populate optional fields confidently.

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 identifies the action (sync), the resource (policy state in the control center), and the trigger context (after Codex native scheduled tasks are created, paused, completed, or failed). It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from read-only siblings, though it does not explicitly say it overwrites the supplied state value.

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?

It provides a clear trigger condition for when to call the tool, namely after Codex native scheduled task lifecycle events. However, it offers no exclusions or named alternatives, and the sibling quota_resumer_set_prewarm_state creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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