set_task_start_time

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. It does not disclose whether setting the start time overwrites a prior value, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens on the backend—only the downstream purpose is stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its rationale are packed efficiently into one clause pair. Slightly terse relative to what a mutation tool could convey, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-param setter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, with zero annotations the missing details on overwrite behavior and idempotency leave a real gap for a write 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 description coverage is 100%: the single start_time parameter already documents the expected format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss) and the fallback to current time. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('设置' / set) and resource (任务开始时间 / task start time) plus the downstream purpose (calculating task duration). The sibling tools (send_notification, format_duration) are unrelated enough that no explicit differentiation is needed, but it doesn't delineate itself against anything.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase '用于后续计算任务耗时' suggests the start time is set so duration can later be computed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives like format_duration for the computation step.

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