402cron

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states that the operation is idempotent, that reusing a name updates rather than duplicates, that creating costs nothing, and that each delivery attempt consumes a credit. It does not describe response shape or failure modes, but it covers the most decision-relevant behaviors.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, idempotency behavior, and cost implications. The core action and the most important behavioral caveat are front-loaded, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description, combined with a rich 100%-covered input schema, gives an agent enough to decide when to call the tool and how to avoid duplicate task creation. It lacks a statement of return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the key operational context—prerequisite, idempotency, and credit cost—is present.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, including security-related notes on body versus headers, cron format, and timeout ranges. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the verified-destination prerequisite and the cost model, so the schema carries the load and 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a schedule against a destination you have already verified.' It clearly conveys both create and update behavior through the idempotency-on-name rule, which also distinguishes it from a plain create-only tool and from sibling update_task.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: after a destination is verified, and when you want a schedule keyed by a unique name. The idempotency statement ('the same name updates the existing task instead of creating a second one') gives practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_task or run_task_now, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side behavior (refusal while tasks reference it) and the ordering remedy. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility or error responses, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: one states the primary action, the other states the key constraint. The sentence is front-loaded with the behavior, and the remediation is appended clearly. No fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will be removed, when the operation will fail, and how to avoid the failure. This is enough for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage — the only parameter `id` is clearly documented as 'as returned by register_destination'. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 specific action ('Remove') and resource ('claimed URL'), which clearly identifies the destination being deleted. It differentiates from the sibling delete_task by focusing on the destination object, and the phrase 'claimed URL' adds a subtle scope distinction beyond the name/title.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it states that deletion is refused while a task points to the destination and prescribes the correct sequencing ('delete the task first'). It would earn a 5 if it explicitly named the sibling delete_task, but the instruction is already concrete enough to steer an agent toward the right action.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses that the task goes to a recycle bin, stops firing immediately, remains restorable for 30 days, becomes unrecoverable afterward, and does not refund spent credits. This is excellent transparency 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?

Three concise sentences each deliver unique information: the primary action, immediate effect with recovery window, and the financial caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides all essential operational context: what happens on delete, how long recovery lasts, what is unrecoverable, and the credit refund policy. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter, including its type and source. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation completely.

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 specific action: moving a task to the recycle bin rather than permanently destroying it. It names the resource and includes key differentiators like 'stops firing immediately', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like delete_destination and pause_task.

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 the usage context by noting the soft-delete behavior and that restore_task can recover it for 30 days, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer delete_task over pause_task or how to decide between destructive alternatives. The caveats are useful but mostly behavioral, not selection guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that omitting the optional parameter returns everything, and that the enum values correspond to documentation sections. However, it largely echoes the schema description and does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or response format, which is acceptable for a straightforward read tool but adds minimal extra context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately explains the optional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns, how to request a section or the whole document, and the valid values are in the schema. No additional context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter fully. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the omit behavior already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool returns machine documentation, either one of the named sections or the whole document. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('docs'), and the listed sections distinguish it from all sibling tools, which handle tasks/destinations instead.

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 provides explicit usage instruction: omit the 'section' parameter to retrieve the full document, or specify a section for a targeted read. There are no sibling documentation tools, so no need for alternative routing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, though it is self-evident.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing key behaviors: balance is counted in DELIVERIES, not money, and packs never expire. This is non-obvious and critical for proper use. The only minor gap is not describing the return structure or error cases, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key behavioral context, and ends with a clear call-to-action. No filler or redundant phrasing. This is a model of conciseness.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, key behavioral quirks, and when to use it. An agent can confidently call this tool without further clarification. The only minor omission is the exact response format, but given the simplicity, this is not a gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds substantial meaning by clarifying that the tool requires no input and returns pricing info. It compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining what the tool returns, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide delivery costs, pack types, and x402 payment requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pricing/payment, which is unique among the listed siblings (most are task/destination operations).

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Call this before buying.' This is a direct usage guideline. It also indirectly suggests that this is the pricing tool, and since no sibling tool has a similar pricing focus, it implicitly establishes itself as the go-to for cost queries.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by clarifying this is a configuration status query, not a liveness check, and that it includes the reason for not selling. It stops short of describing exact response format or error behavior, but for a no-parameter status tool the main ambiguity is resolved.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important scoping distinction ('not liveness') is delivered in the second sentence. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter configuration status check without an output schema, the description covers the core question, the network detail, the failure reason, and the alternative endpoint. It does not spell out exact field names or possible network values, but the agent can reasonably invoke and understand the response.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing additional needed.

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 clearly states the tool reports whether the service is currently selling, on which network, and why not if it isn't. It differentiates itself from a liveness/health check by explicitly pointing to /health, making the resource and purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'This is configuration, not liveness' and directing the agent to the full health endpoint at /health. This tells the agent exactly which tool to choose for which purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the return contents, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it address error behavior or not-found cases. This is a moderate gap for an unannotated 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource type and immediately lists the relevant fields. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the response will contain. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape or behavior when the id does not exist, but these are minor gaps given the simple scope.

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%, and the parameter description already explains that the id is a UUID returned by create_task or list_tasks. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 name and description clearly identify a get operation on a single task resource, and the title 'One task with its full state' distinguishes it from list_tasks by scope. The description enumerates exactly what the task includes, leaving no ambiguity about the resource or verb.

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 this tool is for retrieving one task, especially alongside siblings like list_tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a key behavior: 'The signing secrets are never shown again.' This is valuable because it informs the agent that secrets are not returned. However, it doesn't mention if the list is paginated, sorted, or limited, nor what happens if no destinations exist. It adds some transparency but lacks completeness.

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 concise: two sentences, with no redundant words. The key behavioral note about secrets is included in the second sentence, which is important information. It is front-loaded with the primary content (URLs and verification status).

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what is returned (URLs and verification status) and an important limitation (secrets not shown). However, it doesn't explain the output format (e.g., list vs. object) or any error handling (e.g., what if no destinations), but these are minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the schema is trivial. The description adds meaning by specifying the output content: 'URLs you have claimed and whether each is verified.' This goes beyond the empty schema, providing context that an agent needs about what the tool will return.

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 clearly states the purpose: listing claimed URLs and their verification status. It is distinct from siblings like register_destination or verify_destination, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The resource ('destinations') and the action ('list') are clear.

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 this tool is for viewing destinations and their verification status, which is a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context of siblings (register, verify, delete) makes it clear this is for listing. No explicit alternatives are given, but the purpose is evident.

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

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 behavior. It mentions the Authorization header but does not state that this is a read-only listing operation, what the default state filter is, how pagination works, or what the response contains. The behavioral surface is largely undisclosed.

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 short and contains no filler, with the auth note being a legitimate operating requirement. However, the first sentence is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete instruction, which slightly detracts from structural clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide at least a basic idea of return value shape, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It only covers authentication, leaving unfamiliar agents without enough context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (after, limit, state) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no specific meaning about how parameters interact or how they shape results, so it earns 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 'Your tasks and their state' names the resource and one aspect of it, but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. The title helps clarify, yet the description alone is too vague to fully define the operation and distinguish it from get_task without relying on 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 guidance is given on when to use list_tasks versus get_task or other sibling tools. The only mention in the description is the authentication requirement, which is a precondition rather than usage guidance or a context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states that pausing stops firing and that nothing is charged while paused, adding useful behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not mention idempotency or what happens if the task is already paused, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the key behavioral facts ('stop firing', 'nothing charged') with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what pausing does and the cost implication. It does not detail edge cases like already-paused tasks, but the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the parameter id is already documented as 'Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb ('Stop firing') and resource ('task'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like resume_task and run_task_now by describing the paused state as temporary until resumed.

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 context: use this tool when you want a task to stop firing temporarily. It references 'until you resume,' implicitly pointing toward resume_task, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the one-time signing secret, that it is never shown again, and the exact permission scope ('that path and everything beneath it, nothing above'). This is essential operational context the schema could never express.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the critical secret warning, and the permission boundary. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important operational warning is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return artifacts (challenge + signing secret), required user action (store the secret), and the permission scope. It does not explain the verification flow, but that belongs to verify_destination and is not needed to call this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the url parameter at 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful path-scope semantics — 'covers that path and everything beneath it, nothing above' — which clarifies how the single parameter is interpreted beyond the schema text.

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 says 'Claim an https:// URL you control,' which combined with the title makes clear this registers a delivery destination. It adds context about the challenge/secret response and the path-scoped permission, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like verify_destination or delete_destination.

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 gives clear context: use this when you control an https URL and want to claim it as a destination. It also provides a sequencing rule — store the one-time signing secret before doing anything else — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the intended verify_destination follow-up.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the task comes back PAUSED, and the 30-day time constraint. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a simple restore operation, it provides essential transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical behavior (paused state) is included. Every sentence earns 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?

The description is complete for a simple one-parameter tool: it states the action, the time limit, and the resulting state. It lacks details on failure cases or return values, but given no output schema and the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high coverage. 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 clearly states the action (bring back), the resource (task), and the scope (from recycle bin within 30 days). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_task (opposite) and resume_task (since it mentions the task returns paused). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use it (to recover a deleted task within 30 days) and even notes the subsequent need to resume. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like resume_task or delete_task. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a potential refusal condition (empty balance) and implies the task resumes on schedule. It doesn't mention required auth, idempotency, or what happens if the task is already running.

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?

Two sentences, both informative. The first states the action; the second adds a crucial precondition. No fluff, though 'buy deliveries first' is informal and slightly imprecise for an agent context.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is close to adequate. The key missing context is when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for one-off completed tasks) and whether resume is only valid after pause_task. The balance precondition helps but doesn't fully round out the operational picture.

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 has 100% coverage: id is described as 'Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks.' The description adds no parameter detail beyond referencing the id implicitly. Baseline 3 applies because schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clear action ('Start firing again on the schedule') and the resource (a paused task). It is distinguishable from siblings like pause_task and run_task_now. However, the phrase 'firing again' is slightly informal and relies on the title for full clarity.

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 makes it clear this is for resuming a paused task and warns about balance requirements. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer resume_task over restore_task or run_task_now, though the general scheduling context is implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credit cost per attempt, the retry behavior (up to three retries on timeout/unreachable host), and the maximum possible cost of three credits. This is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention prerequisites like task state, but the critical side effect and failure behavior are covered.

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 three sentences: purpose, cost/retry behavior, and use case. Each sentence carries distinct, necessary information. The all-caps 'THIS COSTS' draws attention but is not overly verbose. The overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, retries, and a usage scenario. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the task must be in an active state or whether this affects the existing schedule, but these are not critical given the simple interface.

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 schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (id, a UUID) is self-explanatory. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline score 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 title and description make clear this fires a task immediately, outside the schedule, as a one-time action. The verb 'deliver' is slightly less specific than 'run' or 'execute', but combined with the title and the explicit contrast with scheduled firing, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to test a destination,' giving a concrete use case. It also states 'outside the schedule,' implying it is for immediate, unscheduled delivery rather than for modifying task configurations. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does substantive work: it warns that null is rejected脚下的 and explains why 'unchanged' and 'cleared' must not look the same. It also discloses that task state is not editable. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether updates are idempotent, but the key behavioral traps are surfaced.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then explains the null/unchanged contract, then routes state changes to the correct siblings. Every sentence earns its place and none merely repeats schema content.

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 an 8-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus the richly described schema covers the invocation essentials: update semantics, null behavior, and sibling routing. The two notable gaps are the missing response shape and the prose omitting `name` from the editable-field list, but these are minor relative to the overall guidance provided.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the omit-to-leave-unchanged rule and the null prohibition, which materially affects how an agent should construct parameters. It does not add per-parameter detail, but it compensates where the schema is silent about update behavior.

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?

States a clear action and resource: 'Change the schedule, destination, method, timeout, headers or body of an existing task.' It also distinguishes itself from state-focused siblings by saying 'State is NOT editable here.' However, the prose list of editable fields omits the `name` parameter that the schema exposes, so the description is not a fully complete statement of what can be changed.

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?

Explicitly explains the partial-update usage contract: 'Omit a field to leave it unchanged — sending null is refused.' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction by naming alternatives: 'State is NOT editable here: use pause_task and resume_task.' This makes the choice between update_task and state-control siblings explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does provide real behavior: the tool makes an HTTP call to the destination URL and requires a challenge back. It also reveals the gating effect — tasks cannot point to the destination until this passes. It stops short of describing failure details response semantics or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two short sentences carry the behavioral description and the important precondition. There is no filler, and the operational behavior is front-loaded before the policy consequence. Every clause earns 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?

For a single-id verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what happens, what is expected, and why it matters. The opening 'We call the URL' could be clearer about whether this is immediate and synchronous, and there is no mention of what happens on failure, but the mandatory precondition is sufficiently clear.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, id, as 'Destination id, as returned by register_destination.' The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond implying that id identifies the URL to call. With 100 percent schema coverage, 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 clearly identifies the verification action: it calls the destination URL and expects a challenge response. It also states the policy consequence, which sets it apart from register_destination, list_destinations, and delete_destination. Slightly indirect because the actual verb 'verify' is not repeated, but the behavior is explicit.

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 phrase 'Until this passes, no task may point at it' implies the tool should be called before creating/pointing a task at a destination. However, it never explicitly says when to use it or when not to, and it does not name any non-alternative. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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