更新任务状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is local, does not execute tasks, and requires a result when status is set to 'done'. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then the critical conditional, then a boundary constraint. Every word 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 simple update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, the critical conditional requirement, and a scope boundary. It does not specify return values (not needed without an output schema) or elaborate on enum semantics, but these are inferable. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the conditional requirement for the 'result' parameter (required when status='done'), which is crucial. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'task_id' or the status enum values, though these are somewhat self-explanatory. The description adds some value but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: updating local task status. It also explicitly distinguishes this from executing the task itself, and the phrase '本地' (local) differentiates from potential remote alternatives. This distinguishes it from siblings like task_create and task_list.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to update status) and a key conditional requirement (result required when marking done). It also gives a negative guideline ('does not execute the task'), which helps the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the execution caveat.

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