指派 Bug（状态流转）

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it is a high-risk operation, defaults to preview mode, and only executes with confirm=true. It also discloses that the comment parameter is silently discarded due to API limitations. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 concise, with two clear sentences and a compact argument summary. It front-loads the action and risk warning, then adds the API caveat. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: the preview/confirm gate, the comment limitation, the API endpoint, and the required parameters. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and avoid common pitfalls.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds important semantic context: comment is explicitly marked as non-effective, confirm is explained as a preview/submit switch, and assignedTo is clarified as an account. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the action: '把 Bug 指派给某人' (assign Bug to someone) and specifies the underlying API call. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve, close, comment by focusing on assignment specifically. The title also clarifies status transition.

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 explains the high-risk nature and the preview/confirm pattern. It explicitly notes that comment is not effective, implying that a different tool (zentao_comment_bug) should be used for comments. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool when you need to assign' or contrast with alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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