打开或关闭 AI Coop

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

Annotations mark this as state-changing but non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the mode persists and alters the host's future task routing automatically. It does not disclose scope (session vs. global) or how to revert, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the effect is stated first. It is efficient, though covering only the enabled branch makes it slightly one-sided rather than fully structured.

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 mutation toggle with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description explains the primary effect but omits the disable behavior, persistence scope, and any prerequisite (e.g., a partner being selected via set_partner_preferences). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

One boolean parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description describes the enabled behavior (打开后...) but never names the parameter or explains the disabled state, which matters because the default is true. It partially compensates but leaves the off-path undocumented.

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 a concrete effect: once enabled, subsequent substantive tasks in the current host are auto-delegated to the other AI, removing the need to call workflow. This distinguishes it from the start_workflow sibling by implication. It is slightly indirect in that it never explicitly frames itself as a persistent on/off mode setter, but the intent is recoverable.

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?

It implies usage (turn this on so you don't have to keep invoking workflow), which is a real routing hint against the start_workflow/start_consultation siblings. However it never states when NOT to use it, nor what disabling does, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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