wb_dev_task_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It explicitly labels the operation as a '写操作' (write operation) and states that confirm:true is required, which is useful safety information. However, it does not describe reversibility, side effects, permissions, or success/failure behavior beyond the schema's confirm note.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it duplicates the parameter documentation that already exists in the schema and includes a CLI mapping that adds little for an AI agent. It is compact, but not every sentence 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?

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required confirmation, and key parameters. It is adequate for basic invocation, but it omits guidance on expected outcomes, error cases, or what 'S4/S7' refers to, leaving some context incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates the same parameter labels and meanings (id, key, index, status, note) without adding new format, default, or dependency details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 ('S4 条目 / S7 清单打勾' – checking off an item in a dev task checklist) and identifies the target resource as a dev-task item. It is more informative than the bare tool name, though the S4/S7 abbreviations are domain-specific and not explained.

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 contextual usage clues ('S4/S7 checklist item') and a CLI equivalent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as wb_dev_task_create or wb_dev_task_stage. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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