update_task_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but does not describe whether the update replaces or appends files, whether the task must exist and be incomplete, or any side effects. The schema includes validations, but the description adds no additional context.

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 concise sentence in Chinese. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured to include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior (e.g., whether the file list is replaced or appended, what happens if taskId is invalid) and return values. The current description is too minimal for a mutation 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 100%: both 'taskId' and 'relatedFiles' have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond confirming that files are related to the task. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states that the tool updates the task-related file list for recording code files and references. The verb 'update' and resource 'file list' are specific, and the tool is differentiated from sibling tools like 'update_task' which likely updates task metadata.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' or 'add_file'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would influence the decision to use this tool.

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