zentao_confirm_bugConfirm a bug in ZenTao by marking it as confirmed, optionally assigning it to a user, with a preview mode before applying the change.
确认一个 Bug（is_confirmed=1）。高风险：默认预览，confirm=true 才执行。 Args: id, assignedTo?, confirm(默认 false)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bug ID | |
| confirm | No | false=仅预览；true=真正提交 | |
| assignedTo | No | 确认后指派给的 account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses high-risk behavior and the default preview mode with confirm=true required for execution. This adds context beyond annotations: it explains the two-phase behavior (preview vs. actual mutation) and the effect (is_confirmed=1). Annotations already indicate destructive, but the description enriches understanding of the safety mechanism.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and risk, making it easy to scan. Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.
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 simple tool with three parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential usage pattern (preview then confirm) and the effect. It doesn't mention return values, but that's not required given no output schema. The missing piece is guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, which is already penalized in usage guidelines.
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 already documents each parameter. The description merely lists them (id, assignedTo?, confirm default false) without adding meaning beyond what's in the schema. The default false for confirm is already in the schema, so no additional value is provided.
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 specific action: confirming a Bug (is_confirmed=1). It clearly identifies the resource (Bug) and the effect (sets confirmation state). It distinguishes from siblings like resolve, close, assign by focusing on the confirmation action specifically.
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 siblings like resolve, close, or assign. It only mentions the preview/confirm behavior, which is more about execution safety than tool selection. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.