dingtalk_todo_task_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action, without mentioning any side effects, permissions needed, or what the response contains (e.g., created task ID). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 avoids verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is almost too terse, providing minimal content beyond the name, yet it does not waste words.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify return values, required permissions, or parameter format nuances beyond what the schema shows. A more complete description would mention typical usage or examples.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds no extra semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 the action clearly: '创建待办任务' (Create to-do task). It specifies a concrete verb and resource, aligning with the tool's name and distinguishing it from sibling operations like update, delete, list, or get. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the 'done' operation which also mutates task state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or done. The context is implied by the name and sibling tools, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative choices.

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