dingtalk_todo_task_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only says '更新待办任务' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, partial vs. full replace, error behavior, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 core action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and every part contributes to understanding.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain the result of an update, whether fields can be partially updated, or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameters, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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%, with each parameter already having a description. The tool's description adds minimal extra meaning by listing '标题、截止时间等' but does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '更新待办任务（标题、截止时间等）' clearly states a specific action (update) on a specific resource (todo task), and the verb '更新' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, and done. It is unambiguous and direct.

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 implies usage for modifying existing todo tasks but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives such as dingtalk_todo_task_done or dingtalk_todo_task_delete. The context of it being an update tool is clear, but exclusions and alternative choices are not addressed.

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