Base Wework Edit Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Chỉnh sửa' (edit), which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether fields can be cleared with null, whether access_token is required, what gets modified, or any side effects.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and enumerates the editable fields efficiently, though it sacrifices useful detail 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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits usage context, required authentication context, field value formats, and behavior when optional fields are set to null. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the remaining gaps are significant.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It lists some editable fields in Vietnamese (name, content, urgent, tasklist, custom_fields), which helps map to parameters, but it does not explain semantics for id, username, access_token, or how null/default values behave.

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 verb and resource: 'Chỉnh sửa... của 1 task' (edit ... of a task), and enumerates the editable aspects: name, description, urgency, tasklist, custom fields. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create, get, or mark_task_done, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base_wework_create_task or base_wework_mark_task_done. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that favor this tool over others.

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