Register estimated work hours for Alibaba Cloud DevOps project tasks to track time allocation and improve project planning accuracy.
[Project Management] 登记预计工时
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| organizationId | Yes | organizationId | |
| description | No | 工作描述 | |
| operatorId | No | 操作者的useId，个人token时该参数无效 | |
| owner | Yes | 负责人，填userId | |
| spentTime | Yes | 预计工时 | |
| workType | No | 工作类别 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is a single phrase with no behavioral details. Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose side effects, required permissions, or constraints, but it does not. The tool creates a resource, but that is implied, not explicit.
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 brief (one short phrase) but under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It is concise to a fault, lacking necessary detail without earning 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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return behavior, required context, or how it integrates with other tools, making it inadequate.
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?
All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no information about parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3.
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 '登记预计工时' (register estimated hours), which indicates a specific action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_effort_record', and the title is null, making the purpose somewhat vague without context.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_effort_record' or 'list_estimated_efforts', leaving the agent without guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.