rework_taskRequeue failed or needs-attention tasks to continue running with the same agent, project, and round. Provide feedback as additional instructions, such as a summary of the previous acceptance failure.
手动返修：把终态任务（failed/needs_attention）重新入队续跑，同一 agent/项目与轮次记账。feedback 为追加指示（建议带上一次验收失败摘要）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| feedback | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Input schema / properties / roundRemoved value: -{
- "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it re-enqueues and continues, affects accounting, and advises on feedback content (include last failure summary). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and condition, then addresses the feedback parameter. No filler, every phrase earns its place.
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?
Complete for a mutation tool without output schema. Covers what it does, when to use, and parameter guidance. Does not mention return value or side effects like task state changes, but that is not critical for a rework operation.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains feedback as additional instructions with a suggestion, but taskId is left to the name and obviousness. Provides some added meaning but not full coverage for both parameters.
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?
States a specific verb 'rework' (re-enqueue) on a task resource, with an explicit condition: terminal states (failed/needs_attention). It also mentions same agent/project and round accounting, which differentiates it from generic run_task. No ambiguity or tautology.
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?
Clearly implies when to use: when a task is in failed/needs_attention terminal state and needs to continue. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the state condition is a strong usage signal that distinguishes it from running new tasks or querying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.