激活 Bug（状态流转）

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a mutating operation. The description reinforces this with '高风险' and the preview/confirm mechanism. It discloses the preview-by-default behavior and that confirm=true is required for execution. However, it doesn't describe side effects like what happens to comments, or state changes beyond reactivation. Given that annotations already flag destructive and non-readonly, the description adds the confirm mechanism which is useful. But it doesn't go beyond that significantly, so a 3 is reasonable.

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 compact: two sentences plus an args line. It front-loads the high-risk warning and the confirm default. The args list is a bit terse but clear. No waste, but the args line could be integrated into the main description for better readability. Still, it's efficient and structured well, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior. It doesn't mention what the preview shows or what the response after execution looks like. However, the context of a mutation tool with preview is partially covered by the confirm semantics. The required parameter id is documented. With four parameters all documented and the main behavioral note covered, it's adequate but missing output expectations and potential side effects, so a 3.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role in the preview/commit flow and highlighting assignedTo as '重新指派给谁', which is a semantic hint beyond the schema's '重新指派给的 account'. The comment parameter is not elaborated but is self-explanatory. Since the schema already covers the parameters, and the description provides the critical confirm semantics, a 4 is justified.

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 states a clear verb ('重新激活') and resource ('已解决/关闭的 Bug'), distinguishing it from siblings like zentao_resolve_bug or zentao_close_bug. It specifies the action is a state transition to active, which is a distinct purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools it is not, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 implies usage: when a bug is resolved/closed and needs reactivation. It includes the '高风险' warning and the confirm flow. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (like zentao_assign_bug for reassignment), but the context of activation is clear. The guidance about '默认预览，confirm=true 才执行' is a clear usage instruction. A 3 is fair because it lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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