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

With no annotations, the description does disclose useful behavior: steps are ordered, they do not nest, and they surface as a human-visible checklist with a progress bar. It leaves gaps on failure modes — what happens with an unknown or completed task_id, or whether repeated calls merge versus replace (that detail lives only in 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?

Three tight sentences, no filler: effect first, timing second, constraint third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers timing, effect, ordering, and the non-nesting constraint, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could say more about what is returned or how existing steps interact, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents task_id, steps, and the replace/append default. The description adds the ordering guarantee and the no-nesting constraint, which is genuinely useful context, but it does not elaborate on parameter values beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Break a task into ordered steps') and explains the observable outcome (checklist plus progress bar). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like taskhold_progress or taskhold_update, which do not create ordered subtasks.

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 states explicitly when to call ('after taskhold_start on work with more than a couple of steps'), giving a concrete precondition and a size threshold. It doesn't say when not to use it or name an alternative for simple tasks, but the context is clear.

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