Dpanel Image Build Run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the build runs synchronously or is queued, what permissions are required, how failures surface, or whether it is destructive/irreversible.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is essentially nothing to front-load.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which slightly lowers the bar. Even so, for a build-triggering mutation with no annotations and an undocumented id parameter, the description leaves critical context missing.

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?

The schema has one required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what the identifier refers to (build record id vs image id). With a coverage gap on the only parameter, the description fully fails to compensate.

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 verb and resource ('执行镜像构建任务' = execute image build task), so the general purpose is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like dpanel_image_build_create or dpanel_image_build_list, and it never clarifies that an existing build is being triggered by id rather than a new build being defined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative siblings (create/delete/prune/build_list). The verb 'execute' faintly implies running an existing build, but the agent is left to infer when this tool applies versus dpanel_image_build_create.

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