更新执行计划

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the required plan state invariant: exactly one in_progress unless all steps are completed. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent construct valid updates.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and follows with the critical invariant. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 two-parameter tool with a clear schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential behavior well. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance and explanation of the optional 'explanation' parameter, but the plan invariant and schema structure make the tool usable without much missing context.

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, but it never explains the 'steps' or 'explanation' parameters directly. It does add value by clarifying the valid status distribution (one in_progress, all completed), which gives meaning to the status enum, but this is only partial coverage of the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific action ('维护' / maintain) on a specific resource ('Codex 风格任务计划'), and the invariant distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_plan. It also conveys the exact state model the tool enforces, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 purpose implies this tool is for updating the task plan, and the invariant gives internal rules, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plan. The context is clear a basic level, but no direct exclusions or sibling comparisons are given.

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