修改任务

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-modify-write strategy and that omitted fields retain original values, which is crucial behavioral context beyond a simple 'update'. However, it does not mention error handling, return values, or prerequisites like the job existing, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the behavioral strategy, then the exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 15 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract well, including the update strategy and exclusions. However, it omits details about return values and error conditions, and lacks discussion of edge cases like job not found, so it is not fully complete.

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 100% description coverage for 15 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical merge semantic—unpassed fields retain original values—which applies to all parameters and is not evident from the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it modifies XXL-JOB task configuration, using the specific verb '修改' (modify) and resource '任务配置' (task configuration). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding scheduling status changes, which are handled by start_job/stop_job.

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 explicitly instructs to use start_job/stop_job for scheduling status and states this tool does not handle that, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also implies usage for partial updates by explaining the merge approach, helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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