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

The description discloses important side effects: deferred tasks return in three days, ruled-out tasks leave the list and stop blocking dependent work, and undo reverses that. This adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only state that the operation is not read-only.

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 compact and front-loaded: each mode is paired with its consequence in a clear, scannable format. The permission caveat is added without clutter, though a slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers all modes, their outcomes, and a key authorization nuance. It is largely self-sufficient, though it stops short of explaining how to choose among sibling task tools.

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 documents task_id, and the description adds meaning to all three mode enum values. With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates for the undocumented enum by explaining exactly what each mode does.

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 clarifies the tool's purpose through its three modes, explaining what happens for 'later', 'not_applicable', and 'undo'. It clearly identifies the resource (a task) and the action (defer, rule out, or restore), though it relies partly on the title to summarize the whole operation.

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 mode definitions imply when each option should be used and even warn that ruling a task out requires the person's say-so. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like move_task or move_task_answer, nor does it 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.