Update estimated work hours for tasks in Alibaba Cloud DevOps projects to improve planning accuracy and resource allocation.
[Project Management] 更新登记预计工时
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | Yes | organizationId | |
| workitemId | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| id | Yes | 预计工时记录唯一标识 | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action (update) without mentioning permissions, idempotency, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 very short and front-loaded with a category label. It is concise but lacks structure or additional information. Just barely adequate.
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 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context such as return type, default behavior, or relationships with siblings. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 descriptions cover all 8 parameters with usable detail. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 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 states it updates estimated effort, which is a clear verb+resource pair, and pairs with 'create_estimated_effort' sibling. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'update_effort_record', and the meaning of 'estimated effort' vs 'effort record' is ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'update_effort_record' or 'create_estimated_effort'. The description lacks contextual pointers for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.